>UPS is also full of holes. No verifications whatsoever.
I've had one of my UPS account numbers used to purchase some labels for someone else (I have no idea who). No way to report this to UPS since I can no longer get in touch with my account rep (who was great, until he disappeared).
Same. One of my UPS accounts would up with about $300 of shipping charges for things that were very clearly not to or from me. Impossible to get ahold of anyone at UPS to discuss/dispute this. Just wound up creating a new account.
Correct on all counts. I don't know how much control Quebec City has over international[1] tariffs, however.
So the shocking allegations boil down to
* US attempt to talk to Quebec City about tariffs, and
* a US think tank publishing something in February 2026 about how the US might benefit from the (meaningful, longstanding, legal) Quebecois pro-sovereignist sentiment.
Meanwhile, no shortage of announced Canadian intentions, in the first Trump administration and during the current trade war, to "target the red states" with tariffs to influence US politics, and no shortage of self-hating American Redditors cheering this on because Trump = bad, so anything that other countries do against the US = good.
[1] I have to specify this, because Canada does not have internal free trade! In some ways, trade with the US is freer than intra-Canada trade. Yet more proof of how as Paul Krugman wrote, Canada is closer to the US than to itself <https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/eh/>.
> Meanwhile, no shortage of announced Canadian intentions, in the first Trump administration and during the current trade war, to "target the red states" with tariffs to influence US politics, and no shortage of self-hating American Redditors cheering this on because Trump = bad, so anything that other countries do against the US = good.
Yes, meanwhile something completely different happens somewhere else. All sorts of different things are always happening all over the world. Luckily we don't see Canada trying to negotiate tariffs with individual states, or else the thing you mentioned might be similar to the situation we're discussing.
Also, as an aside, it's rude to dismiss the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose the harmful tariffs and the related government mismanagement of the economy, as "self-hating American Redditors". They likely love their country at least as much as those who favor destroying the economy and Americans' finances in the name of unprecedented partisan brinksmanship and power grabs.
> Also, as an aside, it's rude to dismiss the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose the harmful tariffs
OP didn’t say everyone who opposes the tariffs. He said people who support Canada openly stating they will impose retaliatory tariffs on red state products specifically, which is meddling with internal U.S. politics.
> retaliatory tariffs on red state products specifically, which is meddling with internal U.S. politics
As you said, they are retaliatory tariffs. This is no more meddling in politics than pissing into the wind and getting wet. Retaliatory tariffs were a foreseeable result of policy some people voted for, and now the results have splashed them.
There's no reason they shouldn't be disproportionately concentrated on those who caused them. In fact, that approaches an ideal world, right? One in which negative externalities are primarily borne by those responsible for them? And importantly, there is no negotiation, no quid-pro-quo. It is just the law of nature manifesting (you attack someone, it is expected that they will retaliate). There's no way to change that law.
There's a popular American republican trope that those who support higher taxes should be the exclusive ones paying those higher taxes. That's precisely what's happening here (tariffs = taxes). Everybody is getting what they want, except the majority of people who want a sane, fair, and predictable tariff regime built upon a foundation of mutual respect between equals – but at least this gets us closer to that. In a crap world, I can see that being progress worth celebrating.
> Retaliatory tariffs aren't interfering in politics. Targeting them specifically at red states then publicizing that fact is interfering in politics.
I respectfully don't agree, for the reasons stated in the above post and ignored in your reply. "Interfering in politics" better describes the more dire actions alleged in this article, with direct trade negotiations between a country and a state/province behind the back of the federal government – a significantly different situation indeed.
But I think we need to be handling it differently. We need to make some structural changes, because the reality is that every global power center is going to be waging covert trade war against red states going forward. We need something comprehensive that makes individual states difficult to target. Because this response strategy is just a new reality. And will be the reality even if the left gets into power in the US. They won't let up. It's not in their interests to do so.
It's just reason number 5 million that the reality of conservative rule has fallen so far short of the promise of conservative rule for the US. I'm not certain there was any plan put in place to anticipate and mitigate likely responses. (And punishing trade policies targeting red states was an entirely predictable response.) Just gross ineptitude from the conservatives to not be prepared for that.
I don't even agree with their policies, but for Christ's sake, if you're gonna pursue those policies, wargame all that out and be prepared.
Now we gotta suffer through amateur hour while the keystone kops drive our country into the ground for two more years. This sucks.
I think a significant portion of the political culture war does revolve around this idea of anti-partiotism.
There is a vocal population that say america is evil, as are it's institutions, laws, and principles. This faction is particularly dominant in places like reddit.
A patriot can see faults in what their country does, as everybody and every organization of bodies makes mistakes. A patriot seeks atonement for those mistakes, to make things right, and come back stronger, with more support from the world.
It seems you're confusing patriotism with jingoism: "we're the greatest country in the world, we never make mistakes, so we don't need to learn from them, suck it victims, everyone is in a grand conspiracy against us because they're jealous, everything bad is bad because of that conspiracy", etc, that sort of thing. That's how you get the sort of "patriots" that one could find in 1939 Germany. I guess some people want that.
I agree that a patriot can be cognizant of shortcomings and Im not advocating jingoism.
I think there is a class of people who are less interested in constructive reform, and more interested in seeing america fail. They would rather everyone suffer than improve and thrive. Maybe they do see that as a form of atonement.
>Somehow this mass immigration has made us older, and less competitive, moving in exactly the opposite direction of the magical solution it promised while giving away the country. It has led to massive lines for every job, downward pressure on wages, and oversubscribed services at every level.
Context for others: Already much wealthier on a real GDP per-capita basis, the US increased its lead over Canada from 2000 to 2025 <https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1YbGu>. The US began the period 28.2% higher, and finished 49.5% higher. Note the lack of growth in the Canadian line that began c. 2015.
Put another way, 100% of Canadian GDP growth since 2015 has been from population growth. Now that the latter has been significantly (not completely) cut back, the country is in a recession (which the bien-pensant media never fails to adding the word "technical" before saying so).
>Here in Canada we've been pitched this same scary argument for decades, leading to outrageous levels of immigration, coupled with a growing entitlement among the class (which leads to a complete refusal to integrate in any meaningful way, often while incanting the laughable pablum about mosaic versus melting pot while dragging regressive, destructive habits and cultural norms to Canada, tragedy of the commons behaviour, etc).
If Trump announced that after annexation the US would deport every TFW/"student" that has arrived since 2015, public opinion would massively swing toward joining the US ASAP.
I'm not following your argument at all, if they had taken no immigrants, the GDP would just be even worse then, and Canada would be even further behind.
It seems no Canadian-born has managed to produce efficiencies or innovations, and only increased labor workforce through immigration has allowed higher production of goods/services (to increase GDP). So wouldn't that mean Canada would have been way worse off without those immigrants?
Per capita. GDP is not meaningful for the average person most of the time. Norway has a very high GDP per capita, but a lower GDP than Canada. Would it make life better for them if they suddenly had double the GDP and double the population? Probably not really, might be more crowded.
Canadians might be able to produce more innovation if there wasn't so much inflation and tax burden due to high immigration.
None of this happens in isolation. If you flood a country with a torrent of migrants, everything else just doesn't continue as is with that one thing happening on the side.
For instance in Canada there was, and remains, a housing shortage. Suddenly a ridiculous amount of our economy turned to speculation on and leveraging of housing. Housing is multi-factorial and there are certainly other issues at play, but it was incredible during the height of outrageous migration when apologists would pretend this adding millions of new people that need to be housed in a short period of time was somehow not a factor (suddenly the demand in S&D didn't matter, because it was a protected topic).
I know even in my neighbourhood migrant families that bought houses they could not possibly afford -- the space was endemic with astonishing levels of fraud, and you could just make up whatever imaginary income you want -- at grossly inflated prices, and the only way they could swing it is to then move a number of international "students" in their basement, the "students" then working full time at minimum wage and often below, etc. A race to the bottom. This sort of knock-on effect happened everywhere. Brampton is basically a giant tinderbox now because it was a city built on this sort of pyramid scheme/fraud nonsense.
Investments all flooded to the same spaces[1]. Who wants to build a business or make a product when you can just make an international "college" or start another exploitative low value human trafficking operation to give points to desperate migrants looking to game the system.
Every business in Canada was competing with race to the bottom "who can hire the most migrants, many who'll actually pay for the right to work" alternatives. Increasing efficiency, automation, etc -- none of it mattered at all, because it can't possibly compete with the place flooding with migrants who'll tolerate anything and accept close to nothing in return. While similar countries were increasing efficiencies, automating, and so on, we were moving to a human trafficking economy. This is true in Canada's agricultural industry where it's like the 1940s because farmers just got accustomed to massive numbers of migrants coming and doing manual labour.
Now add that as the best of the best graduated from Canadian colleges and university, they could take a grossly underpaid job with a Canadian employer, where almost all of their coworkers will be "accept anything" migrants, and fight to pay a million dollars for some shoebox condo....or they could move elsewhere. A shocking number just decided to move elsewhere, primarily the US.
This was hugely destructive to Canada. It was a massive mistake, and we have a lost decade to show for it.
[1] So did government spending. Why do major projects, seek new export markets, etc, when you can announce GDP growth regardless, even if the GDP per capita was flat to declining. A decade when we did nothing but celebrate how wonderfully diverse and tolerant we are.
This is a longstanding trend, of course. One million people born in Canada <https://ourworldindata.org/where-do-migrants-live-and-where-...> live in the US, or about 2.4% of the 41.5 million total Canadians, while 260,000 people born in the United States <https://ourworldindata.org/where-do-migrants-live-and-where-...> live in Canada. The US's population of 338 million is eight times that of Canada's, so a Canadian is about 30 times more likely to move to the US, than an American is to move to Canada.
1.3 million Canadian-born live outside Canada, or about 3% of the Canadian population. 3.2 million American-born live outside the US, 1% of the US population.
If I understand, GDP didn't grow nearly as fast as the population. The economy technically got bigger, but once you divided it across millions more people, GDP per capita shrank while living costs, especially housing, surged. Bigger pie, but even more people splitting it, so a smaller average slice.
That seems to show in the data. Canada screwed this up and brought in way too many people, way too quickly, without anything close to the housing, infrastructure or investment needed to support it. Since the cuts started in 2024 and were pushed further by the new government, GDP per capita has started growing again and rents are cooling, which seems partially explained by those immigration cut backs.
What I can't find in the data is evidence that this explains why Canada lagged behind countries like the US. Most of that gap seems to come from high-tech industries. Meaning Canada just doesn't invest in itself enough, and cheap migrant labour doesn't explain why it failed to build the industries that actually drove growth elsewhere.
>I moved from the USA to Sweden about 6 years ago. Sweden has also been tightening its immigration laws
Context for others: Until 2026 Sweden had no language, income, employment, or skills requirement for citizenship. It now has some basic requirements in these areas.
I’m not sure I would consider $2k a month in predictable wages “basic,” as you say. If you live outside of the big cities, it’s quite an unnecessarily high bar to meet. If you work in industries where time-bounded contracts are the norm over “tills vidare” employment, it’s also basically impossible to satisfy.
Beyond naturalization reforms, you also have the issue of minimum salary hikes for work permits (with no transitional rules), resulting in regular, integrated workers getting deported. 18 year old kids (of regular, integrated workers) getting deported, as well as regular, integrated workers being deported because they happened to come in on an asylum visa and then changed to a work permit (under a law that was revoked, again, with no transitional rules).
Every time the lack of predictability and legal certainty for these people was an explicit choice.
Swedes barely understand the cruelty that’s happening, let alone the damage it’s doing to Sweden’s reputation among globally mobile workers.
If English, German, Swedish, etc. shared a single prestige form, which all educated speakers understand and use for formal purposes, I think it would be reasonable and common to call them dialects of "Germanic".
More generally, you'll drive yourself crazy trying to form an opinion of what a language "really" is independent of what the people who use it believe. Norwegian people can generally read Danish, and Danish people can generally read Norwegian if it's written in Bokmål, but Bokmål is only one of the two equally valid ways to write Norwegian. What's going on there? You can trample over the cultural context to impose some abstract definition of what's "really" a language, or you can accept that Norwegian is a language because Norwegian speakers say so and not worry too much about the metaphysical status of Nynorsk.
Anyway what he really really glossed over is that "Arabic" (or the Arabic languages as would be more correct) speakers will also speak Swedish.
At the same time it is very unlikely that the English speaker will learn Swedish, so English speakers are more of a threat to Swedish than Arabic speakers.
* had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same
* was turned away if failing any of the above tests, with no possibility of appeal
Shipping liner companies were charged to return ineligible passengers to their origin (the same is true with airlines today), so they had every incentive to verify ahead of time that they could enter the destination country. The "only 2% of immigrants were rejected at Ellis Island" statistic often bandied-about by the pro-open borders side elides the restrictions that caused the rate to be so low in the first place.
I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.
1) Only 12 million immigrants came through Ellis Island in 60 years.
2) 30-40% returned home
3) The U.S. strictly restricted immigration for more than 40 years to assimilate the immigrants.
4) Even after all that, the U.S. paid a heavy price. It took until the 1980s to clean up the Italian mafia in New York. And immigrant political machines were the origin of the corrupt political structures in cities like New York and Chicago today.
> Only 12 million immigrants came through Ellis Island in 60 years.
About ten and a half million of those in 15 years, from 1900 to 1914. Against a 1900 US population of about 76 million.
> The U.S. strictly restricted immigration for more than 40 years to assimilate the immigrants.
Or, you know, because the political wind changed.
> Even after all that, the U.S. paid a heavy price. It took until the 1980s to clean up the Italian mafia in New York.
Right. Because nobody else would've filled that niche.
> And immigrant political machines were the origin of the corrupt political structures in cities like New York
The Tammany Hall machine was founded in 1789, was basically running New York by the 1850s, and was in the thick of New York corruption well past the relevance of Ellis Island.
> and Chicago today.
Chicago Democrats were immigrants around the relevant time. Chicago Republicans were from older stock. Both were corrupt.
> Or, you know, because the political wind changed.
Assimilation was the effect of immigration restriction, whether or not that was the motivation. It broke up the chains of migration that facilitated maintenance of separate cultural enclaves.
> Right. Because nobody else would've filled that niche.
Canada and Australia never had a similar problem.
> The Tammany Hall machine was founded in 1789, was basically running New York by the 1850s, and was in the thick of New York corruption well past the relevance of Ellis Island.
Tammany Hall was not a political machine in 1789. According to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall ("Following the 1854 mayoral election and the resulting mayoralty of Fernando Wood, Tammany Hall controlled Democratic Party nominations and political patronage in Manhattan for over a century through its organized network of loyal, well-rewarded, and largely Irish Catholic district and precinct leaders.").
To be clear, the point isn't that they were Irish. As far as I can tell, Ireland isn't more corrupt than other western european countries. It was the political dynamics that arose from the presence of a large culturally distinct immigrant population.
> Canada and Australia never had a similar problem.
Greetings from Canada. I live in Montreal. We have more of a Mafia problem nowadays than New York (no RICO here), and we were comparable in the 1930s. Bootleggers, remember? Where do you think they were running the booze from? Same "market", same mob. Yeah, they managed to dominate everybody else. That's what I mean about "niches". In fact they did it worldwide, and according to Wikipedia they're prominent in Australia, too. These are transnational groups. The Mafia is also big in Sicily. Are you going to say that's because of (checks notes) Sicilian immigration? Specifically because of a huge wave around 1900?
We also have Hell's Angels here. Ethnically "white". No immigrant identification whatsoever, totally acculturated... although I assume some of them moved here from the US. Pretty racist and anti-immigrant, actually. Cool fact: I used to live two houses away from Sonny Barger in beautiful Oakland, California. OK, it wasn't actually that cool. Those guys were really noisy. But I assure you they did not come through Ellis Island.
Apparently Winnipeg has First Nations gangs (Indians to you). Kinda the opposite of immigrants.
... plus a grab bag of others, some of them organized by immigrants. Yes, organized crime tends to segregate itself ethnically, so if one group gets the upper hand, you're likely to see its ethnicity as the face of the problem. But all ethnicities get to play, and they will expand into any available vacuum. If you hadn't had the Italian Mafia (worldwide), you'd have had something else (at least regionally).
And it's not always ethnic. Apparently there's a gang in BC that actually calls itself the United Nations.
> Tammany Hall was not a political machine in 1789.
It sure was by 1854, eh, according to your own quote? That was 38 years before Ellis Island opened. Before the specific wave of immigration that you're claiming caused the problem. Goalposts. You are moving them.
> Irish domination of Chicago's political machine long outlasted the Ellis Island era
... and preceded it. Your own link says "Of the 28 most influential Chicago aldermen of the 1890s, 24 were Irish.". I don't think they teleported from Ellis Island and took over in under 8 years.
Every place has organized crime. But the scale is not the same. You should research the italian mafia problem that existed in NYC. It was a completely different league than anything in Canada or Australia.
As to Ellis Island—I was using it as a label to refer to the pre-1920s wave of immigration generally. It was opened in the 1890s in response to waves of immigration that started in the 1830s. The film “Gangs of New York” is set from 1846-1863.
Technically true, extremely misleading. The law placed vastly fewer restrictions on who was a legal immigrant for much of that period. Of course, it is true starting in 1921, and 1924, legislation was put in place to limit immigration by "undesirables" such as Asians, Italians and Slavs.
Curious...which one of those regimes do you want to bring back?
I'm not sure people should be forced to live with those they feel xenophobia towards, even if one grants that the feelings of xenophobia have no basis in reality.
OK, so considering Sweden, if Sweden is flooded with immigrants, where should the Swedes who just want to live with other Swedes go? Australia??
Also you do realize that your preferred migration policy will lead to microaggressions (and possibly macroaggressions) against immigrants? If people don't have democratic means to keep out disliked foreigners, they may be tempted to try alternatives. The ballot box is ultimately an alternative to violence.
Are you suggesting that all the immigrants in Sweden are acting and thinking exactly like Swedish people, and differ only in "race?" You think the Swedes are jealous about the people who don't need as much sunscreen? Otherwise, your comment is simply irrelevant.
Now do a realistic summary of what it took to pass these checks, eg how details of a medical inspection or what level of resources (inflation adjusted) were required. Equating past practices with current standards is a bait-and-switch.
... as determined by an on-the-spot interview. Which was admittedly done in a very bigoted way.
> had passed a medical inspection
... which took about one minute to check for red flags. If you had red flags, they diverted you to quarantine. They were mostly looking for TB and some eye disease.
> had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same
... by which they meant having as much as $25 on hand (call it $1000 in 2026, though that's a bit high), and convincing the interviewer that you could probably get a job. That convincing step did include claiming, in a way the interviewer found credible, to have skills beyond the "day laborer" level. But only just beyond.
> I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.
Good news: the medical requirements now are equivalent, the financial/self-support requirements are now much, much higher, and the vetting is vastly more thorough.
Something like two thirds of the US federal budget is spent on some form of welfare. Assuming you want to keep that ratio you could spend more per person with fewer people withdrawing from that system.
Completely wrong, except possibly if you're defining Social Security as welfare, in which case honesty would compel you to note that no one draws Social Security except based on having previously made contributions via dedicated taxation for social security.
Just a reminder... Social Security requires 40 quarters (ie, 10 years) of income to even qualify for a pension. And the pension is based on what you earn, which is what you pay into the system.
Only 10 years? Damn, here in many EU countries you need to contribute much longer than that to qualify for receiving a pension. And supposedly we're the "socialist" ones.
There’s a difference between “able to receive” vs. “receive a useful amount”. As I recall they tally one’s contributions when determining payment. But like all government systems it can probably be gamed.
FWIW, social security and Medicare taxes are noticeably higher in the US than Canada. Pay more get more.
I agree that Social Security is not plain welfare, but it has significant welfare components. Simplifying some, you get back something like 90% of the first $15,432 income per year but only 32% of income above that up to $92,988. (And above that, it's 15%.) Only getting 32% back of what you pay in so that the rest can be redistributed to others who made less could be considered partly welfare. Also, if you die too young, you don't get the money back, nor can you give it to your children. It's redistributed to other people. I'm not saying it's bad (I think it's probably good overall), but I can see how it's partly welfare.
The US doesn’t lack the capital for welfare. The country decides to instead waste its resources fighting wars, fighting its allies, fighting its trade partners. The money is here, there is no will to allocate it to welfare. You could reduce the number of people on welfare by a massive amount and none of the savings from that would get distributed to the remaining recipient
The US economy did great prior to 1900 or so. During this period, we did not have significant military action outside of the Americas, and we avoided peacetime alliances. From 1820-1900 the US economy exploded from about 40% the size of the UK economy to about 200% the size of the UK economy.
Switzerland has a per capita GDP exceeding the US while pursuing isolationist foreign policy. They are the world's most popular country in opinion polls.
I hate to break it to you, but the world of pre-1900 has been dead and gone for a solid 120+ years, it was killed off by Europe getting itself into two stupid wars that the Americans had to come over and save them from. Nothing works the same anymore.
All those European countries get to invest in those nice social programs and isolationism because the US has at least up until now acted as world police and handled their foreign affairs for the most part.
No, they're essential to protecting Benjamin Netanyahu's ass. No more and no less.
Less vindictively, the only economic interest the US has in the Middle East is oil. Relying on oil for your energy needs is, in 2026, a choice and not a requirement. Wind, solar, and the batteries you need to store them are continuously getting cheaper. And for the people who are net consumers of energy - primarily the US, Europe, and China - renewables are better for everything, but especially they're better for energy independence!
The only things that require oil are airplanes, plastics, and industrial chemical processes (like we make asphalt out of oil and certain inks out of naphtha). Eliminating most of the energy demand for oil would mean a significantly reduced dependence on foreign oil, and more specifically, the political dependence on low gas prices. America rebuilt all its cities in the image of the car and, as a result, made gasoline/petrol a necessary ingredient of urban mobility. This was, again, a choice - we absolutely could have retained and grown our dense urban cores and we can still rebuild what was destroyed.
But this requires an entire governing body at every level that is not a corpse paraded by the ghosts of Tammany Hall, Standard Oil, and Hitler. The primary crisis in America that is driving these wars is a fundamental lack of political will for alternatives.
>"Those wars are essential to protecting our economic interests"
Translation - we bomb people for money. well thanks for being frank anyways. otherwise it is sick to hear all that moralizing about "us being a good guys"
This is a statistic that is technically true but has some hidden nuance.
Depending on what gets counted, "public assistance" stats like this usually include medicare and social security. (Social security gets debated because of how it's paid-in, but I'm not here to argue that. The fact is, it gets included in these stats). Those two make up the dominant consumption of public assistance to the point that things we hear about in the media like food stamps are kind of a rounding error.
Medicare and social security are collected primarily by older people. Foreign born populations have much lower numbers of people in that age bracket than the general popualtion.
Combine those two facts and it's not surprising that when you look at charts of foreign born vs native born, the foreign born population uses less public assistance.
It's a statistic that is more about age distribution than anything. Like when you one of those bad maps trying to prove a point but really just showing population density of big cities.
I'd love to see some source for this, because from what I've seen, 59% of undocumented immigrants receive some form of welfare (the state of California spends roughly $10 billion a year alone on this) and documented migrants are at roughly the same rate, double the native born population's rate of 28%.
I can't find study now from CIS but when I dug into it, it lumped citizen children of undocumented immigrants into "undocumented immigrant", and other studies classify them as native/citizen. It also looked at estimated education costs since schools are required to take all school age kids without regard to immigration status and many of big school systems don't have a breakdown of immigration status. CIS argument was: If parents are immigrants, shouldn't be contribute the kids cost to them regardless of kids status?
Looking at CBO numbers, CBO reports that recent immigration into United States is drain, in particular, at state and local level since that's generally budget that gets impacted the most by people. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61464
> I'd love to see some source for this [proceeds to throw out a bunch of source-free numbers]
I looked up the source for these numbers.
It's the Center for Immigration Studies, and they are notorious for being a right-wing think tank used to dress up up anti-immigration policy using misleading statistics.
How notorious are they? Well, they are listed as a hate group with the Southern Poverty Law Center[1].
The numbers you're citing aren't 'welfare,' the biggest thing is using the education system. The thing that, long term, makes they into productive taxpayers. CIS doesn't figure the long-term benefits into their numbers because that would destroy their thesis.
The HUD secretary mentioned the number, and the number was also included in a Congressional report, though it ended up being through testimony, also from that same source, which I hadn't realized. I'd been under the impression the one claim was independently sourced from actual federal data, rather being from CIS.
In any case, none of this amounts to immigrants using less welfare than native born residents, which is what I was asking sources for.
The vast majority of the difference, according to the article, is social security benefits and Medicare. The non-retirement difference is very small.
> Native-born Americans use an average of ... $3,638 in means-tested benefits in 2023. By comparison, immigrants used ... $3,370 in means-tested benefits.
The article also ignores state provided benefits, and thus the disparity between documented and undocumented migrant populations. The article 's "much less" headline is not really supported by the evidence provided.
>Around 70% of American billionaires made their money themselves, while in the EU a similar share inherited it.
The top 100 wealthiest Austrian families own two thirds of the country's wealth <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36755835>, and none of the wealth came from tech companies. The same is likely true of Germany with one exception: SAP.
Put another way, the two wealthiest German-born tech people (except the founders of SAP) are Peter Thiel and Andy Bechtolsheim, both of whom earned their billions in the US.
>So this is how, in 2007, during a tour of the facility, I stumbled across a Pentium 1 system running an AmigaOS emulator on Windows NT 4.0 that was responsible for displaying the status of the control rods of a nuclear power plant.
Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky depicts a human society thousands of years in the future, in which pretty much all software has already been written; it's just a matter of finding it. So programmer-archaeologists search archives and run code on emulators in emulators in emulators as far back as needed. <https://web.archive.org/web/20231114211656/http://www.gareth...>
(Heck, recently I migrated a VM to its third hypervisor. It began as a physical machine a quarter century ago.)
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/state-mandated-girlfriend
reply