Category: Policy

Facts Unite

EDITION 7-10-2025

Welcome to FACTS UNITE, our social media buzz word fact checker. Because Misinformation is un-American!

Our FACTS UNITE newsletter sets the record straight on the moment’s most repeated and shared social media threads from both the left and the right. Because uniting around truth and fact is our only hope to beat the money back!

*Special note: Unite Us is laser focused on bringing the Left and Right together around the fight to rip money out of politics. However, a fast-moving government in the 21^st century means a very fast flow of misinformation. Coupled with an unprecedented influence of corporate and billionaire money inside most actions taken by our new administration, we’re feeling the need to cover a broader-than-normal range of topics and news, including reports on misinformation.

If you have a trending thread you’d like us to research, email us at info@unite-us-now.org.

Public usernames of prolific content providers may be published here.

EXECUTIVE POWERS LIMITATIONS

THREAD #1, from a Facebook user:

“President Trump [can] cut the budgets of [all] departments based upon what he sees at (sic) frivolous spending. Elon and his tech geeks have been hired by President Trump to do what they’re doing and it is completely within the bounds of the law and the Constitution. It’s called Executive Powers.”

TRUE, FALSE, OR MISLEADING? False.

The very first congress of the United States decided what departments would make up our government, after much debate. The State Department was set up by Congress, not by George Washington. Statutes passed by Congress created all government agencies, and they cannot legally be repealed by the executive branch or the president alone.

The most discussed example this week is USAID, which was created by Congress when it passed the Foreign Assistance Act on September 4, 1961. Congress authorizes its programs, and appropriates money (Congress has the “power of the purse,” article 1, section 9) to it. Yes, the president and national security council work in a guidance role to congressionally created departments, and the executive branch has a role to play in all budget policy, but those policies are, at the end of the chain, passed in Congress.

Once Congress passes a budget which earmarks a certain amount to USAID (or any government organization), the executive branch cannot unilaterally decide not to spend it. That would be a violation of The Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The executive branch can ask congress to put a hold on appropriations in a specific department for 45 days for various reasons if, and only if Congress approves the request.

That is an example of how checks and balances work. You can like what the Trump/Musk Whitehouse is doing. You can think that their method should be the law of the land. But currently, it is not. He did not get approval from Congress to halt or defer spending. This will likely all end up back in the Supreme Court, but it’s unlikely that even our very conservative court will be ok with hollowing out our checks and balances- it’s been challenged several times, by the left and right (Clinton and Nixon, for example), and never stuck. In 1997 Justice Paul Stevens was part of the majority that killed some presidential flexibility within the Impound Act stating “There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.”

CONGRESS VS POTUS

THREAD #2 from a Facebook user:

…“it is unconstitutional for Congress to interfere in Executive Branch activities without the President’s invitation…[this is] called the separation of powers.”

TRUE, FALSE, OR MISLEADING? Patently False.

This thread actually describes what government would be like WITHOUT a separation of powers. Think impeachment, passing of laws, changes to the constitution which limit power to the executive branch…all powers available only to congress, which needs no invitation from the executive branch to introduce a bill, or to remove a president (25th Amendment). Were this thread’s take to be accurate, we would be living in some version of autocracy or dictatorship. It is your right to argue that we should be- that’s a potentially interesting debate. But that is not how our separation of powers have ever functioned, or how they were designed to function. It is important to note that a separation of powers is an integral part of every functioning democracy to date, throughout history and across the globe.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING TRANSPARENCY

THREAD #3 from a Facebook user:

“[Congress doesn’t] want you and I to know where our money is going… this deep look into wasteful spending IS something that is LONG OVERDUE in our government…”

TRUE, FALSE, OR MISLEADING? Up to debate…and False.

It’s perhaps a fair guess that some percentage of Congress would prefer that we voters not have the ability to research governmental budgets and spending, but the reality is that all government spending has always been on public record. In this internet age, we just have to go to government websites like https://www.usaspending.gov/, or any of the private watchdog groups like Politifacts, Transparency International, Americans for Financial Reform, The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, etc. All nonpartisan organizations that have been tracking and reporting accurate government spending details for a very long time.

Of course, it is up to each voter to decide if they believe that Elon Musk can do better than departments created by a democratic Congress like The Office of Management and Budget. But these threads are an indication that political propaganda has successfully convinced some portion of the country that we’ve never had government agencies (very plural) keeping eyes on budgets and spending. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

DOGE IS KILLING IT

THREAD #4 from a Facebook user:

“DOGE is uncovering MASSIVE frivolous wasteful spending – into the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS.”

TRUE, FALSE, OR MISLEADING? As of yet, not true.

As of yet, DOGE’s claims at unmasking and eliminating significant waste or fraud is unfounded. DOGE recently submitted list of alleged…not proven…items of waste and abuse to conservative outlets, with Fox News reporting that they amounted to “millions of dollars.” Millions of dollars, even billions of dollars will have no significant impact on the 1.7 to 2 trillion that DOGE claims to be able to cut.

Most line items that DOGE claims represent careless spending have been fabrications, including the claim that the U.S. spent 50 million on condoms for the Gaza strip, that the U.S. paid to send celebrities to Ukraine, or that agencies were funding “tourism” in Egypt (those expenses were actually aid packages to build potable water and wastewater systems to hundreds of thousands of Egyptians)

In 2023, the USAID budget was 40 billion. In spite of viral claims, the agency’s purpose is to spread U.S. goodwill across the world and employs a mostly American 10,000 person staff. Prior administrations have considered USAID to be a valuable tool in the belt of international diplomacy which not only spreads the virtues of democracy and free markets vs communism and authoritarianism, but also softens the blow of the fact that the U.S. uses around a third of the worlds resources, while being home to less than 5% of its population.

Whether or not you, the voter, feel that the U.S., as by far the wealthiest, largest consumer and polluter on earth, should spend 40 billion a year on international aid programs, there is no evidence of significant waste at USAID, and even its entire 40 billion budget is a drop in the bucket in our $6.75 trillion federal budget (00.59%) or our annual deficit (2%).

WHAT IS POLITICO PRO?

THREAD #5 from Harry Bolz @elonmusk on X

Politico Pro purchases for 37 FDA employees is “not an efficient use of taxpayer funds.”

TRUE, FALSE, OR MISLEADING? True, and misleading.

The FDA does purchase the very pricey Politico Pro and Analytics suites for 37 employees. However…

Most of us know Politico as a nonpartisan news resource with a respectable reliability rating from Ad Fontes Media Bias (42.4). Politico news is largely free to consumers. Politico Pro Plus and Pro Analysis are a completely different service catering specifically to political professionals and lobbyists, providing “in-depth reporting across 22 coverage areas and an advanced technology platform that includes legislative and regulatory tracking tools, government directories, transcripts, outreach trackers and more.”

Pro Analysis also includes access to a “library of analyses and infographics outlining key policy and legislative issues as they develop. Both subscription levels allow you to organize your workflow on one seamless platform.”

Typical Pro subscribers include “analysts and researchers who use our comprehensive regulatory and legislative trackers, consultants who rely on our customizable policy reporting and breaking news alerts and lobbyists who develop outreach strategies with Pro Directories and Stakeholder Management tools.”

In short, Politico’s subscription services are very pricey because they are fed by a team of 300 researchers with strong connections and experience inside Washington. The fact that it is an essential tool to corporate lobbyists courting congress to the tune of billions of dollars a year should be an indication of how powerful its platform is.

As such, members of an organization like the FDA who are charged with protecting the public from all food and drug related outbreaks and dangers use it to learn up to the minute info in order to help discern not only what is taking shape with approved products in circulation, but what lobbyists may be pushing on Congress, and why.

Not only is Politico Pro a standard industry tool (however expensive), it’s cost to the taxpayer is insignificant within the FDA annual budget of $7.2 billion (0.0000719%).

THE FUN AND ABSURD

THREAD #6, from an X user Wall Street Apes @wallstreetapes:

“The Pentagon spend[s] 600 million a year on sushi”…etc

TRUE, FALSE, OR MISLEADING? Absurd!

20,000 people work at the pentagon. 122 million people live in Japan. Those 122 million Japanese spend 8.3 million dollars a year on sushi, and they eat aaaaloooot of it! This means that if this rumor were accurate, the 20,000 people who work at the Pentagon would have to be eating more than 72 Japans worth of sushi every year! Which is, of course, is absolutely, totally, beyond bonkers. Every employee of the Pentagon would have to be at least a small whale for that to be possible.

The same is true of every claim we found frequently attached to this thread, including claims about massive sums spent on K-cups, disposable plastic cups, or the claim that the Department of Treasury has never refused funding- this claim demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to how government funds are appropriated to departments and agencies (see above).

BE A PATRIOT!

THANKS FOR CARING ABOUT THE FUTURE OF AMERICA! Check in regularly for our latest updates.

Please remember that unregulated social media platforms are the absolute worst resource for reliable, fact driven news and data. Starting with social media as your news feed is the literal equivalent to having a limitless free food card to the supermarket (the internet), and still choosing to start your grocery shopping in the trash bin. Great, fact-based sources are available across the web for free- view our always-growing list of trusted, fact driven news and info sources on our RESOURCES page. Be a Patriot! Start with good info, and take it with you to your chats.

Towards a better union

Join The Fight

Immigration

Back to News

Immigration

THE ISSUE

Immigration has been a contentious topic in the US for more than 60 years. Discussed, debated, weaponized and at times ignored by both parties, it is still playing a central role in elections, culture wars, and the money in our politics.

As we publish this article, President Trump is rolling out various deportation measures through executive orders. It is far too early to speculate as to what lasting impact they will have on immigration, and the economy.

All that can be said with confidence is that historically, executive measures, unlike laws passed by Congress, tend to find themselves tied up for years in litigation. It is also true that the approaches outlined in Trump’s measures thus far do not comport with the those recommended by experts to Congress over decades, which repeatedly failed to be passed into law. Brief explanations of those failures are outlined below.

CAN WE EXPECT A RESOLUTION?

We encourage you to read up on the facts and history below, but if you’re after the short version…

It’s impossible to know what immigration policies future administrations will attempt to implement or ignore. What we do know is that common sense, data and research-driven recommendations from experts over the past 60 years have been repeatedly pushed aside by administrations from both parties, in favor of the wishes (and money) of corporate lobbies and special interest groups.

Few issues in American politics represent the perpetual stalemate of the American Duopoly better than immigration. With corporate America and special interest groups now able to pump as much money as they like into the campaigns of both major parties, there is no real incentive for Congress to effectively revamp immigration policy, as doing so could raise prices across goods and services, and negatively impact the earnings of thousands of employers and most major corporations, whose money Congress members rely on to put them in office.

Our overall deduction is that while our legal immigration policies need to be overhauled (primarily for the safety of immigrants and the communities they inhabit), immigration of all kinds continue to do more good than harm, and as long as corporate money continues to dominate our politics, we should not expect any meaningful change.

What we should expect is that until we get money out of politics and the reimplementation of a fairness doctrine in media, politicians, news media, and social media personalities will continue to weaponize immigration, exaggerating its real effects and inflating the data to improve ratings and support their preferred candidate. Our willingness to cover immigration is primarily to exemplify how money in politics can distort, weaponize, and stalemate progress on important issues, to which we often hold known solutions.

HISTORY

Believe it or not, prior to 1965, the US had no real, lasting, legal immigration policies. Those that had made their way through congress were based primarily on race and geography, not on merits or need.

In the late 50’s and early ‘60’s, pressure began to build domestically and from foreign allies to abandon our race-based system. In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson enacted a bill that President John F. Kennedy had championed, which was meant to limit legal immigration to 265,000 people a year, based on favor to advanced skills and expertise that the US needed most, not on country of origin. The bill (and LBJ) promised the American people that immigrants seeking work as unskilled laborers would not benefit from the new legislation (titled The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 ) thereby protecting blue-collar, American jobs.

Though the bill passed in the House by 320 to 70, and in the Senate by 76 to 18 (74% of Democrats, 85% of Republicans), it had arrived there through no shortage of interest group opposition, namely from the powerful American Farm Bureau Federation, which opposed limiting immigration from countries in the Western Hemisphere due to historical reliance on low cost, seasonal labor from South America in US Agriculture. In spite of that opposition, when enacted the bill originally limited Western Hemisphere immigration to 120,000 annually, with the Eastern Hemisphere limited to 170,000 annually.

IF WE ALREADY HAVE AN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM, WHY ISN’T IT WORKING?

One of the provisions of the 1965 bill that has never functioned as hoped is its allowances for the legal immigration of family members of US Citizens and legal permanent residents, which importantly does not count against the overall immigration quota. Though predicted to be of no great significance, the percentage of legal, foreign-born Americans has increased from 5% in 1965 to 14% today, largely from what has become known as chain migration.

The more often debated and weaponized effect of the bill resulted from its first ever cap on immigration from countries in the Western Hemisphere, which exposed the country’s dependence on arguably exploited immigrant labor, particularly in seasonal agricultural jobs. Legal, temporary work visas for such employment had been around since 1940, but were plagued by employer’s unwillingness to abide by worker protection rules. In 1952 the H-2 temporary visa was introduced. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act applied the above-mentioned overall cap, as well as per country caps of 20,000 to those visas.

While these caps were intended to protect American jobs, employer preference for the lower wages of immigrant labor, coupled with a growing disinterest in particularly agricultural jobs within the American workforce led to an increase in illegal immigrant labor in the following decades.

ATTEMPTS AT IMPROVEMENTS

Initially, the inability of the 1965 bill to cap immigration went largely unnoticed by American voters. Undocumented immigration from Latin America continued to be largely seasonal and moderate, due to the cost of the journey at the time. By the 80’s, that had begun to change. In response, the Reagan administration passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which cracked down on crossings at the US-Mexico border, granted amnesty to roughly 3 million immigrants, and for the first time made it illegal for US employers to knowingly hire an undocumented immigrant.

The IRCA failed for many reasons, in large part due to governments unwillingness to impose substantial fines on employers hiring illegal immigrants. The militarization of the border also backfired- immigrants who would typically travel to the US for seasonal work and return to their respective countries every year began remaining permanently in the US, choosing not to risk annual border crossing, in what has become known as circular migration.

In the mid ‘90s, President Bill Clinton formed a bipartisan immigration commission, led by former House member Barbara Jordan. The most important results from the commission’s extensive research were these: that unchecked immigration does have the ability to harm the earning potential of legal US citizens (especially 1^st generation immigrants), and that the best way to stem that harm is to aptly punish employers who hire illegal immigrants. It also recommended a cap on “chain migration” by restricting allowances to only certain members of an immigrant’s nuclear family.

Yet, when president Clinton began taking steps to implement the commission’s recommendations, he received opposition from both parties. As with the 1965 and 1986 bills, opposition came from both civil rights groups and corporate America. Corporate America pressured Republicans, who were already being funded by companies enjoying low cost, illegal immigrant labor. The US Chamber of Commerce lobbied in opposition to increasing fines against employers. Civil rights groups, often Democratic voters, some of which are made up of immigrants, pressured Democratic lawmakers to reject the recommended changes out of broader humanitarian concerns. In the end, the commission’s findings were not acted upon through any meaningful legislation.

SO, CAN WE EXPECT ANY MEANINGFUL IMMIGRATION REFORM?

The short answer: probably not any time soon.

The reasons for this are many, but looming large over the issue is the fact that corporate America greatly benefits from illegal immigration. While the big ag lobby of the American Farm Bureau did not get its way in 1965 when it lobbied against the bill’s cap on immigrants from the Western Hemisphere, it likely looks back upon that loss as a happy accident. Because unskilled work visas cannot be granted until all willing, legal US citizens have had the opportunity to take those jobs, and because it is actually more expensive to hire legal, visa carrying immigrants than to hire native born US citizens, employers across sectors have no reason to prefer authorized immigrant labor over native born employees. As such, both legal and undocumented immigrants working in the unskilled labor sector are either filling jobs not wanted by Americans, doing those jobs for less money, or both.

As argued in the Barbara Jordan Commission of 1995, Congress could streamline the H-2 visa system, increase the quota for them to accommodate actual historical and projected need, and shift the punishment structure to more severely affect employers who do not comply, rather than those who do. In the current system, employers opting into the legal H-2 visa system face extensive processing procedures and fees, transportation fees, and fines for any violations ranging from $1,700 to $59,000. Fines for employers hiring undocumented labor, which is often hard to prove, range between only $600 and $4,000.

In a 2021 interview with Newsweek, Christopher Landau, then Ambassador to Mexico under former president Trump stated “I think, ultimately, the United States is making a terrible mistake by thinking that the answer for our country lies in trying to fix other countries. We don’t have a great track record in terms of nation-building. It seems to me the answer is much closer to home. I don’t see how we can’t get our own employers to stop hiring people illegally.”

WOULD DEPORTATION AND ELIMINATION EVEN WORK?

Again, the short answer…no. While Democrats tend to argue publicly that Republican immigration policies are inhumane, and Republicans like to argue that immigrants are stealing jobs and committing crime, the less sexy truth is in the numbers.

And those numbers show that without first changing the system to focus on equity (ie, mandatory living wages, reasonable employer fines for violations), we cannot afford to turn away immigrant labor.

In research conducted by the Cornell Farmworker Program, 30 US dairy farmers explained that they have to use undocumented workers because they cannot find reliable U.S. citizens to do the work.

A Texas A&M study, commissioned by the dairy industry, notes that a reduction of foreign-born workers by 50% would result in the closing of over 3,500 dairy farms, driving an increase in the cost of dairy products by 30%. A total elimination of immigrant labor would raise milk prices by 90%.

With 53% of the roughly 3 million farm workers in the US being undocumented, the industry’s employers save billions a year in wages and other fees associated with the transportation, housing, healthcare, and processing fees of legal, H-2 worker visas. 2022 saw 370,628 certified H-2 visas. Because H-2’s cannot be issued until all willing, legal American Citizens have had the opportunity to take those jobs, we know that the US would be short roughly 67% of its needed, annual farm labor force without legal and illegal immigration.

That says nothing of our reliance on immigrant labor in other sectors- 15% of the construction industry alone is made up of illegal immigrant labor.

WELL, THEN WHY ARE WE SO WORRIED ABOUT IMMIGRATION AFFECTING THE ECONOMY?

Good question. One of the most cited studies on the matter was conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. The finding shows the following:

-Immigrant impact on the wages of native workers is “very small,” and those most affected are other immigrants.

-“There is little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers.”

-“[As for] the role of immigrants in consumer demand…Immigrants’ contributions to the labor force reduce the prices of some goods and services, which benefit consumers in a range of sectors, including child care, food preparation, house cleaning and repair, and construction.”

-“…skilled immigrants are often complementary to native-born workers, that spillovers of wage-enhancing knowledge and skills occur as a result of interactions among workers, and that skilled immigrants innovate sufficiently to raise overall [wages and] productivity.”

-“There is little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers.”

Virtually all reliable, fact-based studies continue to mirror these findings. Historically, low unemployment, high immigration and a booming economy almost always occur simultaneously.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

As stated at the top, the aspect of immigration that most needs attention is how our immigrants enter and assimilate into our communities. The protection of their rights, the rights of the citizens they live amongst, the safety of working conditions and their value to society all depend upon an immigration system that is fair, regulated, and enforced. Data repeatedly points to proper punitive measures against employers who hire the undocumented as the first and most important step in that pursuit.

The list of findings and facts below debunking common immigration myths stand as examples of how Democrats, Republicans, and the media all use immigration as a tool to gain attention, donations, win elections, and protect the real winners on the topic: corporate America, and its unchecked enjoyment of low-cost, legal and illegal immigrant labor and exploitation.

-We’ll start by letting the cat out of the bag: There is zero credible evidence that Haitians (or any other immigrant group) have been found to eat pets or wildlife.

-There is no evidence that either legal or illegal immigrants commit crimes at a higher level than native born U.S. citizens. On the contrary, extensive research by Stanford has shown that immigrants are 60% less likely to be incarcerated compared to the native born. A study by The Marshall Project has shown that there is no link between illegal immigration and a rise in violent or property crime. Even more focused, state level research like that done by the Cato Institute have found that in Texas, undocumented immigrants were 37.1% less likely to be convicted of a crime.

-Various studies collected by PBS News show that…

…Immigrants contribute more in tax revenue than they take in government benefits.

…Immigrants do not take American jobs, but take jobs that tend to boost other parts of the American economy.

…Immigrants are key to offsetting a falling birth rate.

…Granting citizenship to the children of immigrants results in a more productive workforce.

From the Pew Research Center using the most recent published immigration data (2022):

-The 4.0 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico living in the U.S. in 2022 was the lowest number since the 1990s, with its peak being in 2007 at 6.9 million. In 2022, Mexico accounted for 37% of the nation’s unauthorized immigrants, by far the smallest share on record.

-Unauthorized immigrants represented about 4.8% of the U.S. workforce in 2022. This was below the peak of 5.4% during the Bush administration in 2007.

-In 2022 there were 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the US, or 3.3% of total population. The actual peak of 12.2 million (or 4 % of total population) was also under the Bush administration of 2007.

-Unauthorized immigrants make up 5% of the country’s workforce, barely up from 4.52% in 2019, and lower than the 2007 peak of 5.4%. The percentage of unauthorized immigrants in the US workforce has been in a statistical equilibrium for 15 years.

REFERENCES

In the fight against the tyranny of money in politics, hard truths and facts are the people’s most powerful weapon. Unite Us is dedicated to using direct reporting, scientifically collected data, corroborated testimony, and sources which do the same. This requires vetting every scrap of information. While some sources are consistently more partisan than others, no resource is always right or always wrong- there is sometimes good information to be mined from unlikely resources. We do that digging for you.

https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/economic-and-fiscal-impact-of-immigration

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/03/08/immigration-projected-to-drive-growth-in-u-s-working-age-population-through-at-least-2035/

https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NAE_UnusualWorkingHours_V5.pdf

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/23550/RiB-fiscal-immigration.pdf

https://instituteforsoundpublicpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/jordan-commission.pdf

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/h-2a-workers-us-agriculture

https://www.nmpf.org/wp-content/uploads//immigration-survey-090915.pdf

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2016/11/03/size-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-workforce-stable-after-the-great-recession/

https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-us-farmworkers-undocumented-ending-illegal-immigration-could-devastate-economy-1585202

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5049707/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-immigrants-us-jobs-economy-farm-workers-taxes/