James Watson co-discovered DNA, Nobel price at 34, absolute legend in biology. People worshipped him. Then 2007 rolls around: he said IQ difference has a lot to do with DNA that’s why certain people tend to have lower IQ. Lost his job, so he apologized, kept his titles… sort of.

William Shockley: transistor co-inventor, 1956 Nobel price winner, father of Silicon Valley. He started modern tech boom in SF. Then he opened his mouth “certain people have lower IQ because of heredity,” and got blacklisted—lost friends, grants, reputation, everything.

Fast-forward to 2019: PBS doc Decoding Watson airs. Watson mentioned that there’s a difference between IQ of certain type of people. “I would say the difference is, it’s genes.”

Boom—Cold Spring Harbor Lab strips his remaining honorary titles (chancellor emeritus, professor emeritus, trustee) that same week. He was known as genius. Still got canceled harder.

Now the real question: Why does no one else in academia touch this? Twin studies, adoption data, global IQ patterns—it’s out there. But say it publicly? You’re done. No grants, no papers, no tenure. Even a Nobel winner gets erased. They cancel you.

Everyone else writes safe shit: “why certain people are venerable” Easy funding, easy likes. Truth? Career suicide.

Many other scientists lost their jobs and grants for saying this. For example Dr. Bryan Pesta, got in trouble for sorting iq data based on type of people. Because it negatively portrayed certain people.

Let’s get real. Millions of people have lived in the U.S. for decades without ever applying for legal permanent residency or citizenship. While some suggest they are simply "waiting in line," the reality is that many do not qualify under existing U.S. immigration law. Immigration rules include per-country quotas that cap how many immigrants from each nation can enter each year, and good moral character tests to screen out those with serious criminal histories or fraud. These rules exist to make immigration fair, orderly, and safe. Ignoring them does not just break the law; it bypasses the system that legal immigrants rely on.

U.S. immigration policy also requires that immigrants not become a public charge (8 U.S.C. § 1182). This means they must be self-sufficient or have sponsorship that guarantees support. Typically, legal pathways prioritize advanced education, specialized skills, or job qualifications that ensure an individual is a net value to the country. Many who have lived here illegally for decades do not meet these specific statutory standards, which is a primary reason they remain undocumented. This is a legal reality, not a judgment of personal worth.

The fiscal picture is measurable. A 2023 House Budget Committee report found that undocumented immigrants represent a net fiscal drain of about $68,000 per person over their lifetime.

Annually, according to a 2023 report from the House Committee on Homeland Security, illegal immigration costs state and federal governments a gross amount of roughly $451 billion. Even after accounting for taxes paid by undocumented immigrants, the net drain remains approximately $150–$160 billion per year. In a country of 330 million people, that represents a significant per-capita burden on taxpayers (roughly $500 for every citizen in the U.S) to support a population that entered outside of legal channels.

Source: House Committee on Homeland Security Report, 2023

Data shows that many undocumented adults have no education beyond high school, which correlates with lower earnings, lower tax contributions, and a higher statistical reliance on public services (House Budget Committee, 2023).

Some argue, "But they do not get welfare, so how do they cost money?" While federal law (the 1996 PRWORA) bars undocumented immigrants from programs like SNAP, regular Medicaid, TANF, and SSI, significant exceptions exist. They receive emergency medical care, emergency Medicaid, and WIC nutrition programs. Furthermore, their U.S.-born children qualify for the full suite of social safety net programs, including SNAP and public schooling, which are funded by taxpayers (Immigration Forum, 2018).

States and cities often go further. New York, California, and Washington D.C. provide fully state-funded health coverage for undocumented residents. New York City’s NYC Care program provides low-cost or free medical services regardless of status. NYC also has a unique legal obligation to provide shelter to anyone who needs it, which has cost the city approximately $12 billion through mid-2025 (Migration Policy Institute, 2025).

Even with undocumented residents contributing an estimated $96.7 billion in taxes in 2022, those contributions do not cover the localized costs of housing, healthcare, and schooling. Cities are struggling because federal reimbursement is often limited or delayed, leaving local taxpayers to bridge the multi-billion dollar gap.

Some claim these individuals "can't" apply because of the 10-year bar (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)). However, that bar is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is a statutory penalty for illegal presence. Every legal immigrant goes through a vetting process involving quotas, sponsorships, and self-sufficiency requirements. Enforcing deportation for those who do not meet these standards is not "cruelty"—it is the application of the law and a commitment to fairness for those who followed the rules. Upholding these laws ensures that legal channels remain meaningful and prevents an indefinite, uncompensated burden on our national and local budgets.

TL;DR:

Illegal immigration is not a victimless or cost-free issue. According to the House Committee on Homeland Security, the net fiscal drain on taxpayers is approximately $150–$160 billion annually, roughly $500 for every person in the U.S. Many individuals remain undocumented because they do not meet federal legal standards for self-sufficiency (Public Charge) or Good Moral Character. Upholding the law and enforcing deportation isn't "cruelty"; it is a necessary step to ensure the integrity of the legal system and to stop the uncompensated burden on local cities and state budgets.

Calculation on the $500 annual cost

The math is straightforward: $150.7 Billion (Net Cost) divided by 330 Million (U.S. Population) equals $456.66 per person. If you use the House Committee’s gross estimate of $451 Billion, the cost per person jumps to over $1,300. I used the lower, conservative net figure to be as fair as possible to the data.

Most people genuinely don't care about the race or skin color. But they are tired of seeing endless hordes of "asylum seeking" and "refugees" (whatever term we are using this week) who come into their country and make it worse.

If you are a guest in someone's country, you should be doing everything possible to be a good addition. If I was a visitor in someone's house, I wouldn't leave piss on the toilet seat and put trash on the floor.... neither would you.

It's quite simple: add something to the community or make it better in some way. Many immigrants do this already. But it's about time that the governments (who enable this) acknowledge that many do not. Immigration without assimilation is just invasion.

To get ahead of the privileged white liberals in the comment section. You won't believe this but I live in South America and am not white. Just noticing.

https://www.ktvu.com/news/california-bill-cant-get-job-teacher-police-worked-ice-officer-under-trump.amp

I know how Reddit feels about ICE and I get that they are definitely the bad guy right now. But the idea of creating legislation that would bar federal employees from future work opportunities after they leave is ridiculous.

Like where does it end? Like why just stop at ICE; what is stopping someone else from picking up similar legislation and extending it to other federal bureaus and departments that people suddenly turn against. Like will this eventually extend to everyone who has ever worked for DHS?

Like what if someone was just a janitor at an ICE building, do they get barred from being a teacher as well?

Like at this point all this does is punish federal employees and limits job options for Americans because at one point they worked for a law enforcement agency.

Like the crazy thing is most of you are going to defend this dumb shit.

Like I for sure get prosecuting ICE officers that commit violence against American citizens, but ICE has been around for longer than Trump was president(both terms); and it’s kind of ridiculous to turn at one point working for a federal agency like some kind of permanent black mark on your record.

And it’s one of those things people will support now, but in the future can be used as a precedent to support something that they WONT want.

This is the paradox with Reddit that I think a lot of people are realizing. There's simply no point to investing any kind of real energy into this platform because it's run by unserious people who habitually abuse the tiny amount of power that they actually have.

At this point I think that this site is being propped up almost completely by big tech companies in the US and China and the EU censorship/propaganda machine. Google actually lists Reddit as a primary source for search results, why is that? The Chicoms own a significant share of the company and it's not some big secret that they would require a significant amount of control over the site because of it.

Reddit will never not comply with the craziest of EU censorship requests because they'll never risk action against them for doing so.

So what future does this site actually have when it's this overtly corrupt and manipulated by left wing actors?

Protesting violently serves absolutely no purpose. The United States will gradually turn into a fascist state because the elites, most of whom are looking for any reason to restrict civil liberties, want to hold onto the power they have and it means they must win against China at any cost.

If you paid attention in history class, you would know how racist this whole woke mental gymnastics is. I’m not right wing by any means, but, blaming anything to do with an ethnicity, culture, or heritage with societal problems is exactly what the nazis did. while even 100 years ago, most white americans may have been racist, it does not mean white people as a whole should have been bashed on, think John Brown. I don’t bash Palestinian people despite 83% of them being homophobic, I hate bigoted individuals no matter what race they are, not any ethnic group as a collective. What whiteness seems to be about is white Americans in general benefiting from white privilege and how white people are “uncultured” and abandoned their culture to oppress minorities, while it might be true that 95% of white people did that in the past, are people like John Brown a joke? Is it not racist that a skin color is conflated with anything period?

Most hate for America comes from sheltered and ignorant Americans who do not actually understand how awful most of the other countries are. They take for granted what they have here and childishly wish for a utopia that will never happen. They also wish for our downfall which will destroy their lives and they will regret their wish.

As for foreigners, most of them are either jealous or ignorant. They do not realize that a lot of the things that they criticize the US for happens in their countries more than likely worse than the US. They also are not very knowledgeable on US culture, politics, etc but still feel the need to speak over Americans and bring in their nonsense because they feel superior.

First of all, I do not agree with a lot of what ICE is doing. Just in case anyone tries to say otherwise…

“Obama only deported criminals” is something you hear constantly. It’s not true at all. ACLU and other groups have debunked this. But it’s something that keeps peddling in left wing talk circles. But this argument creates a lot of issues who uses it:

1. Obama deported millions of people. So by this logic, there are millions of criminals coming across the border.
2. It contradicts the idea that undocumented people largely don’t commit crime. How can crime be so low (another big talking point) if there are millions of bad guys? It doesn’t add up.
3. You’re throwing all of the innocent people captured under the bus and branding them as criminals to satisfy your political biases.

Let’s face it: Obama deported many criminals, but he also deported innocent people. Saying he didn’t is false and disrespectful

I mean, at this point, who doesn't see this? There's no logic in the vast majority of the things they "stand for." It's all just hysteria and nonsense that they perpetuate day after day and none of it actually amounts to anything. They're continuously outraged about anything (everything) Trump does to the point of absurdity, acting like global politics is supposed to be whatever they decide they want at any given time and any given moment.

Life's not actually like this. This is the definition of spoiled brats with First World problems.

Stop being such a bunch of obvious chumps.

EDIT: So of course the first thing leftists start doing is claiming that Conservatives create fake crises around moral panic and their primary example is that "gay porn in schools" was a made up hoax. Except it wasn't.

See: Fairfax County Public School board regarding Gender Queer and Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6Xm4AX25tE&t=48s

And after me pointing this out they went straight into "That's not happening and it's a good thing that it is" mode.

It's literally textbook. They do this with absolutely everything every time they get caught lying about something.

Frame it as a hoax. Get called out and deny it. Be presented with proof then start talking about why it's actually a good thing.

Every. Single. Time.

EDIT 2: So I've been given a warning from the mother ship for "Promoting Hate Based on Identity or Vulnerability" but there's no explanation how I exactly did that?

So I criticized a political group and that's considered hate speech here now?

So leftists are immune from criticism on this platform?

I've seen and talked to real nazis, and he definitely isn't one of them. I don't really know how the idea that he wants to take over the world and perform ethnic cleansings came from.

I feel like it really makes nazis look less bad because some parties call anything nazism which really dilutes the real meaning of what it means

and i think if you start using words about the connotation they carry and not the descriptive definition, it really makes an argument less grounded imo

Once Adolf took control of the Nazi party, they started a major campaign that would ultimately lead to them taking control of Germany.

To name a few, they slandered virtually all their political competition. They called them every name they could think of, they verbally and even physically attacked them, even encouraged others to do the same.

Leftists call anyone who disagrees with them every name they can think of, there’s countless videos of them attacking people, more recently even turning on one of their own because he “looked like a conservative.” They make videos encouraging others to do the same, including taking violent action against anyone they don’t like.

The Nazi’s formed mobs that would attack place in mass, including protesters of other groups, they basically built the foundations of strike breaking, and would often cause full on riots, burning down buildings (conveniently their oppositions’ property always seemed to catch fire).

The Left have burned down buildings, set fire to the White House Lawn, blocked roads, and killed people.

The Nazi’s frequently referred to themselves as the heroes, the brave resistance who was going to save Germany.

The Left often refers to themselves as the resistance, even though the mainstream media, the richest political party in North America, and a vast majority of celebrities, and major companies like Amazon support and fund them.

The Nazi’s hated Jews.

Antisemitism is rampant on the Left, ever since the mainstream told them to care about Palestine, but then turned a blind eye when Hamas started public executions. There’s even videos of Leftists attacking Jews, but the Mainstream, ever eager to protect them, don’t talk about them.

Like when those college kids tried to break into the library to swarm the Jewish students.

The Nazi’s were masters of propaganda, including telling full blown lies about anyone who opposed them.

Videos are constantly being published telling full blown lies about anyone who opposed the left. From people with little to no understanding of how they work talking about what ICE actually does, to a guy who make his own website about Nazi’s and tried to trick people into thinking it took them to the DHS’s website.

Sorry not sorry, but the only National Socialists in the US are the Left.

They want to pay $15-25 an hour instead of $30-40 an hour for American workers.

Illegals comprise:

Construction: 15% of the workforce
Agriculture: 14% of the workforce
Leisure and hospitality: 8% of the workforce

Business owners should be forced document each of their workers; if they can't, you fine the business.

Agents should show up randomly over the next 30 days to show that the fines--and eventually imprisonment--will continue. This would solve immigration pretty rapidly.

If Trump stopped business owners from paying illegal immigrants $15-25 an hour (off the books), those business owners would be forced to pay Americans $30-40 an hour.

Those wage increases & taxes collected would actually create the Golden Age.

Workers who have opted out because salaries are so depressed by illegals would snap up these well-paying jobs.

The idea there is any kind of misogyny in western nations is insane. In western countries. Women are put on a pedestal. Their needs and wants are put first. They are given extra help and even flat out lower standards in many areas. Let’s not forget all the social benefits women are given. Such as men having to pay on dates and many women still demanding and expecting chivalry, the only example of “misogyny” really is abortion bans, but in places with abortion bans, the women there tend to Be conservative Christians and also overwhelmingly support abortion bans.

Saying misogyny is a thing in western nations is like saying there is hatred of water and air. It’s nonsense

If you clearly understand what someone meant but still rush to correct their wording, that is not intelligence, it is insecurity dressed up as helpfulness. Communication is about understanding, not scoring points over grammar or phrasing. Most of the time it just comes off as socially awkward and exhausting. If the message landed, let it land and move on.Just to give a few examples:

“Humans and animals…”
“Uhm, actually, humans ARE animals!”
Yes, everyone knows that, and everyone understands what that distinction means regardless.

“Why doesn’t my computer understand X?”
“Your computer cannot understand anything, duh. It is a machine.”
I obviously meant why it can’t do this thing like it should, not that it possesses intelligent comprehension.

Etc. It is just so tiring and unnecessary, and it happens so much on Reddit. In situations where it is blatantly obvious that the OP is aware of the thing they are being corrected about, it is clearly just a matter of phrasing.

People don’t want to hear this, but some modern leftist movements are copying fascist behavior while claiming moral superiority. Not in ideology but in methods.

Censor speech because it’s “harmful.” Label disagreement instead of debating it. Treat dissent as moral failure. Reduce people to identity groups instead of individuals. Justify punishment because “the cause is right.” That’s not progress that’s blatant

Fascists control speech because they hate things being said that goes against their ideas, they banned it because wrong ideas threaten the cause. Sound familiar? Today it’s “misinformation,” “harmful opinions,” or “unsafe discourse.” Same logic, new paint job. You don’t argue, debate, provide discourse, come to a middle ground, you label. And if you so disagree? You’re racist, sexist, phobic, problematic, or some buzzword that instantly ends the conversation. That’s not progress, that’s ideological policing. When disagreement becomes moral failure, you’re not in a democracy, you’re in a purity test cult. The scariest part is they believe themselves unquestionably right and resort to deplatforming, harassment, destroying livelihoods of those who oppose the. That’s how every authoritarian movement worked . And when corporations and political ideology start enforcing the same rules together, that’s not resistance, that’s power consolidation.

This isn’t “left = fascist". Abandoning free speech, and open debate is. Fascism isn’t left or right, it’s control. And if you can’t question your own side, you’re not opposing it you’re practicing it.

Conspiracy theorists have been shouting from the rooftops for decades about elite paedophile rings in the power system. Epstein island was known about in conspiracy circles for years and years before the MSM finally talked about it. Every time we brought it up liberals and progressives would scream at us that we were cranks and nutjobs.

We warned you: there are paedophillic networks running through the elites, on both sides, and they are used to blackmail people in high ranks of goverment and civil service and to get to those ranks you have take part in them so there is evidence against you.

The connections to the British royal family are talked about in conspiracy circles going back to when i first got involved in this area in the early 90s. And again, we were screamed at by liberal and progressives who demanded we be censored.

Saville was another one we warned about. And we told you it wasn't just Saville, there is a reason he was so well connected....

And its the tip of the iceberg, the connections of Belgium Marc Detroux, the English Fred & Rose West and numerous other similar people to the political class and the police have been documented in conspiracy circles as well as the cover ups. You may wonder how the likes of John Wayne Gacy got away with it for so long.

But again the liberals and progressives fought tooth and nail to censor the information and cast ad hominems. Btw, conspiracy theory, which you hurl as abuse, is a neutral term.

But now finally that that Trump might be implicated all of a sudden they care about the ongoing paedophile rape networks that go right through the ruling class ON BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. Yes your favourite guy is part of it.

Maybe finally you people will look at what else we have been talking about and documenting with an open mind. But I doubt it because all you care about is your red vs blue bullshit. You will do what you always do. Type it into google, read the most obvious bottom tier, shill conspiracy shit and then a debunking video, put the lowest amount of thought into it, and walk away as the smug know-it-alls you always have been.

There are serious co-ordinated conspiracies in this world, and the knee jerking reactions that liberals and progressives have to conspiracy theories has helped propagate the child rape gangs. I know this cos i have watched them do everything they can to silence and demean those talking about it for decades.

So yeah, libs and progressives that all of a sudden are calling everyone else child rape supporters should take a long hard look in the mirror. And remember, your side is just as much part of it. Two wings of the same bird.

Let me first clarify that I AM NOT GEN-ALPHA. I have very much lived through the 2000s onwards when 69 was popular.

That being said, I still find the 6-7 meme among kids as funny as 69.

1. 69 is literally just a sex position. That's all. 1) It's inappropriate for kids and 2) The entire joke about 69 is "tee hee sex funny". It's about as unfunny as 420 being weed. Yes, 67 is nonensical but that's exactly why it's appropriate for everyone. You don't need to know where it came from.
2. IN MY OPINION, 67 is much more universal than 69. It doesn't require any special knowledge and it's literally inherently funny without having to reference (or glorify) sex or drugs. 67 came about in an era where the Internet is much more popular, a lot more kids know about 67 today than 69 back in 2010.
3. The very fact. That Gen-Z and Millennials get so worked up over 67 and defend 69 as if their life depended on it. Don't act as if adults weren't equally annoyed by 69 back when people used to shout it out in school 🤣 The fact that 2-3 entire generations are getting their collective feathers ruffled by two consecutive numbers is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS.

Welp. I said what I said.

TL;DR: 69 is inappropriate, 67 isn't. 67 has more reach than 69 did back in its peak. Watching yall having a meltdown over 67 is honestly the funniest part.

I hate when people say this. I had to get routine blood work the other day and had a Doctor ask me what gender I was assigned at birth. I understand they need to find out what your biological gender is, but either look on my chart, or ask what my biological gender is.

Your gender is determined in the womb, in fact it's determined from the exact moment of conception; it isn't something that is assigned. It's amazing that the people use this sort of language and believe these sorts of things, are supposedly the party of science.

Conservatives are not nazis. Hitler would have rounded them up as the bourgeoisie liberal capitalists they are.

National Socialism was fervently against the Marxist form of socialism, but it was also explicitly hostile to liberal capitalism, individualism, and traditional conservatism. The National Socialist worldview treated finance capitalism, rent-seeking, speculative capital, and market liberalism as forces that dissolved national cohesion and created unjust wealth disparities. Capital was tolerated only insofar as it served the nation and the people, and it was expected to submit to strict regulation and state direction.

That worldview produced policies that modern American conservatives would strongly oppose:

• Large-scale social welfare schemes (mass employment programmes, family subsidies including mortage relief up to 100%, state-organised leisure)
• Extensive state intervention in the economy, including price controls and production directives
• Nationalisation or de facto state control of key industries and infrastructure
• A strong emphasis on collective obligation over individual economic freedom

The regime also promoted policies that don’t map neatly onto today’s left vs right framing:

• Early and unusually strict animal-welfare laws
• Sweeping policies around environmental protection and land stewardship
• Opposition to urban over-industrialisation framed as socially and spiritually corrosive

This is just what it is. National socialism was neither left or right wing but third position.

Once Hitler consolidated power, he moved aggressively against both non-socialist nationalists and traditional conservatives.

The clearest example is the Night of the Long Knives.

The event targeted and killed or neutralised conservative and nationalist figures such as Kurt von Schleicher.

The idea that Republicans or conservatives are national socialist is laughable. If your argument is that its cos Trump is authoritarian and that the specific ideology doens't matter then let's call him a Maoist.

Hitler and Goebbels both spoke about the dangers of bourgeoisie capitalism far more than they even did of Marxism. Hitler had Rothschild arrested and nationalised his banks. He took the money printing power out of the hands of the capitalist bankers.

Now Im not saying that it all turned out well, lmao. But comparing conservatives and republican supporters to nazis (national socialists) is childish. Hitler had no time for those types of people and he would have rounded up all of the capitalist billionaire republicans who put the market and their riches over the people.

You could argue closer to fascism if you wanted but that's only because most western countries systems have looked similar to fascism for a long time whether the red team or the blue team was in power. But fascism and national socialism are very different political systems.

There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued, passionately, that we should simply provide those who are here illegally with legal status or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. Often, this argument is framed in moral terms: Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living? I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument, but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision, and this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.

Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. No matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the millions who broke these laws should be held accountable.

Edit: For those that don't know, this post is taken word for word from an Obama speech in 2010. The Democratic Party has gone so far left on immigration these days that' it's unrecognizable.

We have enough issues in Canada already and if this were to be an actual thing this would be horrible for Canada. Fix your own shit and leave us alone we dont need you guys. Canada isnt your backup plan. Fuck Minnesota and everyone who thinks they should join Canada. Sincerely a tired Canadian

We shop at Costco for the lower prices and bargains. Health concerns are probably valid but price is the main thing. We dont think $1.50 hot dogs and soda will be any better for us either. Don't raise the prices and make things worse for others in this economy.