All Episodes
Previous Next
March 24, 2021 - Epoch Times
22:02
Supreme Court Rejects Facebook Appeal in $15 Billion Lawsuit; Stimulus For Illegals | Facts Matter
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening.
According to this new report, illegal immigrants who are here in America are set to receive $4.3 billion in stimulus checks.
Which, by the way, is not the only perk of being here in America illegally.
That's because it was also just reported that the Biden administration will be spending $86 million to house families that cross the border illegally.
Meanwhile, over at the Supreme Court, they have just rejected an appeal from Facebook.
That means that a class-action lawsuit, which alleges that Facebook was secretly tracking its users while they were browsing other websites, can now move forward.
In other news, attorney generals throughout 13 different states across America are collectively suing the Biden administration because of their cancellation of gas and oil leases.
And lastly, two days ago, the former director of national intelligence, he came out and he said that the Pentagon will soon be releasing a report on UFOs which will contain more information than was previously made public.
Let's go through these stories together.
This is your daily Facts Matter update, and I'm your host, Roman, from The Epoch Times.
Now let's start today's discussion by talking about some of the perks that come with being here illegally.
And let's start with stimulus checks.
Right now, as Americans are starting to receive their third round of stimulus checks, a new analysis, I have it right here in my hand, revealed that about $4.3 billion will also be going to illegal immigrants.
Now, this analysis comes from a think tank called the Center for Immigration Studies, and their estimate is based on the fact that about 2.6 million illegal immigrants have social security numbers that will allow them to receive stimulus checks.
Now, the director of research at this think tank gave this group a name.
He called them aliens temporarily present without status, and he described them this way.
These individuals are in the country illegally and could be required to leave.
Yet under the current system, they are still given work authorization and social security numbers.
Now, according to this analysis, among those 2.6 million illegal immigrants include DACA recipients, asylum applicants, people who are applying for a suspension of deportation, among many other groups.
Now, not included in this 2.6 million number, by the way, is another 1.8 million illegal immigrants that the government suspects are using social security numbers that don't actually match their given names.
And then, there is a third group of about 600,000 people which were given social security numbers when they were in the country illegally, but they have overstayed their visas, but still have a valid social security number.
And here's how the director of research in this think tank put it.
There is simply no question that millions of illegal immigrants will receive billions of dollars in COVID relief checks.
This highlights an even more disturbing fact.
Illegal immigrants are being issued social security numbers in large numbers.
This is a clear indication that America is simply not serious about enforcing its immigration law.
Now, stimulus checks are not the only perk that illegal immigrants are receiving.
According to officials at the Department of Homeland Security that we at the Epoch Times spoke with, the Biden administration is set to spend $86.9 million to house families which have unlawfully crossed the U.S.-Mexico border.
Now, we here at the Epoch Times, we actually reached out to the acting director of ICE, which is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, and he told us that this $86 million contract was awarded to a company called Endeavors, which is a nonprofit based in Texas.
And according to him, they will use the money to provide temporary shelter and processing services for families who have not been expelled and are therefore placed in immigration proceedings for their removal from the United States.
Now, in terms of the specifics of what this $86 million will actually go towards, he said this.
The $86.9 million contract provides 1,239 beds and other necessary services.
The families will receive a comprehensive health assessment that includes COVID-19 testing.
Our border is not open.
The majority of individuals continue to be expelled under the Centers for Disease Control's Public Health Authority.
Now, by the way, I wanted to mention something.
When this story was originally broken by Axios about two days ago, they reported that some families will be placed in hotels, and that some of this $86 million will be going towards their hotel rooms.
And, at this moment, it's unclear whether these 1,200 beds mentioned by the ICE director are the same as the hotel rooms or not.
It's a little bit vague.
And perhaps one of the reasons that it is vague is because when that Axios story broke, there was quite a bit of backlash on social media.
As just one example, Lauren Boebert, who is a member of Congress from Colorado, she wrote this.
ICE is spending $86 million on hotel rooms to house illegal immigrants surging across the border.
Meanwhile, you can go to any city in America and see hundreds of homeless people sleeping on the street.
This policy is a disgrace.
Now, all of this is coming, by the way, at a time when there is a huge surge of illegal crossings at the southern border right now.
In fact, in terms of the sheer volume of border crossers, it's the biggest in 20 years.
It's gotten so bad, in fact, that FEMA was recently activated, and they leased a convention center in Dallas in order to hold 3,000 unaccompanied minors who unlawfully entered the country.
And as to what happens to those minors after they're held for a while, well, here's what the Director of Homeland Security said: In more than 80% of cases, the child has a family member in the United States.
In more than 40% of cases, that family member is a parent or legal guardian.
These are children being reunited with their families who will care for them.
However, opponents of this approach argue that this just encourages more minors to come to the U.S.
And as to how all of this will ultimately play out, what will be the endgame?
Only time will tell.
However, I will mention that we actually have staff on the ground in Texas right now doing on-site reporting over at the US-Mexico border, including this phenomenal exclusive interview that we just got, which was with a border agent who gave us an insider's look into what the overcrowded migrant facilities actually look like.
I'll throw a link to this story into the description box below this video, along with all the other stories we discussed, by the way.
And also, if you're the type of person who likes reading a print newspaper, a physical newspaper, then I would highly recommend that you try the Epoch Times.
I'll throw a link to the subscription page as well in the description box below.
You can click on it and try the print newspaper.
And actually, along that line, there's something I'd like to mention.
Right now, here in America, we are living through the late phase of a massive consolidation of media.
In fact, it's been reported that 90% of the news outlets in this country are controlled by only six corporations.
And as bad as that is, this problem is even further compounded by the fact that a lot of kids that are coming out of school right now are being taught something called new journalism.
It's also known as advocacy journalism.
To them, to these new journalists, it's the issue that matters.
It's the narrative that matters.
And so what they normally do, as I'm sure you know if you've read any kind of mainstream publication recently, is that they want to pick an angle that promotes some kind of a cause.
They want to feel like they're doing something, like they're part of a bigger movement.
In other words, their focus is on interpreting the news, not just reporting the facts.
Now, of course, they likely believe that this approach is helping humankind by furthering some kind of a benevolent cause, which is all well and good except for the fact that they might not be right.
I mean, personally, I believe that it's perfectly fine to interpret the facts and push some kind of an agenda.
I mean, there's no problem with that in theory.
But that's not news.
That's advocacy.
News is something very specific.
It's supposed to be an accurate window into what is happening in this world.
And then from there, once you have an objective source of information as your base, then you can come to your own conclusions.
But if the news itself, if the source of information that you're getting is working to push some kind of an agenda, then that can lead to very warped outcomes.
It's analogous to having the water inside of a village's well be poisoned.
And that's why we here at the Epoch Times, we practice something that we call traditional journalism.
And what that means is to the best of our ability, what we try to do is present you with an accurate picture, an accurate representation of what took place, who said what, how things played out, and we give you all of our source material so that you can come to your own conclusions.
Basically, our approach is that we don't believe that it's necessary.
We're even responsible to try to interpret the news for you.
I mean, we of course have an opinion section where people can do more analysis and interpretation, but in terms of news, in terms of journalism, we say this.
Our job is to inform people.
Our job is to give people an understanding of what's taking place in this world.
I mean, honestly, as far as I'm concerned, I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but actually I don't think I am, is that the reason people read newspapers is to not be taught how to think.
They read newspapers to get a full picture of what is taking place, and then they want to draw their own conclusions about it.
That's what I believe, at least.
And along that line, you likely already know that YouTube demonetized us so that we can no longer run any ads before, during, or after our episodes.
However, if you would like to support independent journalism, I'll throw a link into the description box to a page where you can subscribe to the Epoch Times.
Actually, there'll be two links down there.
One is for a digital subscription, and then the other one will be for a print plus a digital subscription, whatever you're interested in.
And I hope you subscribe.
It only costs a few dollars every month, but you'll be supporting honest, independent journalism.
You'll have access to uncensored reporting.
You'll have access to all of our video documentaries.
And our email newsletter team is great about sending the hottest stories directly to your inbox so that you're always aware of what's going on.
I mean, I don't know about you, I don't like receiving too many emails, but the emails they're sending out are always on point.
So again, those links will be in the description box below this video.
I hope that you check them out, I hope that you subscribe, and I hope that you join us on this journey of exploring truth and tradition through honest journalism.
And now, let's talk a little bit about aliens.
Not illegal aliens, but UFOs.
The former director of national intelligence, John Radcliffe, he recently said that the U.S. government is planning to release a declassified report which will share more information about UFO sightings than has been previously revealed.
Here's what he said during an interview with Fox News.
There are a lot more sightings that have been made public.
And when we talk about sightings, we are talking about objects that have been seen by Navy or Air Force pilots or have been picked up by satellite imagery that, frankly, engages in actions that are difficult to explain, movements that are hard to replicate that we don't have the technology for, or traveling at speeds that exceed the sound barrier without a sonic boom.
Now, during that interview, he also added that he actually wanted to have this information declassified and make public before he left office, but apparently he was not able to do it in such a short amount of time.
Now, these comments come almost a year after the Pentagon released three videos, you might have seen some of them, of what they called unidentified aerial phenomena.
Those videos, which were taken by U.S. Navy aircraft cameras, show objects that are moving at unexplainable speeds and left the pilots who took those videos pretty confused.
Now, when those videos came out about a year ago, a former Democrat senator, Harry Reid, he was pushing for investigations into these UFO sightings, and he said that these three videos only scratch the surface of what is known by the federal government.
On Twitter, he wrote that, The U.S. needs to take a serious, scientific look at this and any potential national security implications.
The American people deserve to be informed.
Now, according to a provision that was tucked inside of the recent government spending bill, the Department of Defense is scheduled to release this report about UFOs on June the 1st, so about three months from now.
However, they are only going to be releasing that report to the Senate Intelligence Committee, not to the general public.
And so, it'll ultimately be up to the senators on that committee to decide whether common plebs, like you and me, will get to learn about the contents of that report.
Now, we here at the Epoch Times, we reached out to the Department of Defense for comment on these UFOs, but we have yet to hear back.
If you would like to read the full comments that were made by John Radcliffe, or if you would like to watch those three videos that were released by the Pentagon last year, those links will be in the description box below this video for you to check out.
And by the way, that is that same little description box that is right below that like button that I hope you take a moment to smash.
Because it goes without saying that videos that are like this, talking honestly about what is happening in this world, are routinely censored by big tech.
They are censored more than information about UFOs.
However, when you smash that like button that's below this video, you are forcing the YouTube algorithm to share this video out to potentially thousands of more people, letting the truth be known far and wide.
All right, before we move on, there was actually two stories I didn't get a chance to talk about in the in-studio filming of today's episode, but I'd love to discuss with you.
So the first one, when I came across my desk yesterday, I literally could not believe what I was reading.
So Senator Tammy Duckworth, who is one of only two Asian-American senators in the U.S. Senate, she came out yesterday and said basically that she will vote no on any of Joe Biden's cabinet picks if they are white and straight.
Here's a quote from her.
She said, quote, this is what she told reporters.
I am a no vote on the floor on all non-diversity nominees.
You know, I will vote for racial minorities and I will vote for LGBTQ, but anybody else I am not voting for.
Afterwards, she was joined in by Mazzie Hirono, who is the other Asian-American serving in the Senate.
She's a Democrat from Hawaii.
And that senator said, quote, I'm joining her in that, which means that we would like to have a commitment from the White House that there will be more diversity representation in the Cabinet and in senior White House positions.
And until that happens, I will join her, meaning Senator Duckworth, in voting no on non-diversity nominees.
Now, we're not just calling for Asians.
This is not about pitting one diversity group against another.
So I am happy to vote for a Hispanic, a black person, an LGBTQ person, an Asian person.
I almost literally couldn't believe it.
Can you imagine politics in the year 2021 where it's actually possible that you are sitting in front of the U.S. Senate, you're a potential cabinet pick for the president, and they look at you and they ask, well, hey, we notice you're white.
And you look at them and you go, yes, I am white.
And then they go, are you gay?
And you go, no, I'm not.
And then they look at you and they say, this position is not for you.
It's something else.
So that was yesterday.
However, as of today, these two senators actually reversed themselves.
They said that they came to an agreement, some kind of an alleged agreement with the White House, and that they reversed themselves.
They said that the White House will add a senior liaison to their community, and in exchange, Duckworth, as well as Hirono, will support the Biden nominees.
Now, according to a spokesperson for Senator Duckworth, here is what he said, quote, Senator Duckworth appreciates the Biden administration's assurances that it will do much more to elevate Asian voices and perspectives at the highest levels of government, including appointing an Asian senior White House official to represent including appointing an Asian senior White House official to represent the community.
So there you have it.
I kind of went back and forth, but again, I literally could almost not believe reading this.
If you want to read it for yourself, the link will be in the description box below.
Now, the other story that I really wanted to discuss with you here is about the 13 states, the attorney generals of 13 states who are collectively suing the Biden administration.
Now, the charge is being led by the attorney general for the state of Louisiana, a man by the name of Jeff Landry.
This picture of him right there.
And he is taking legal action in order to, as he says, protect jobs and uphold the rule of law.
So I don't know if you remember, but back in January, Joe Biden took a few steps.
He signed an executive order to begin halting all oil and gas leasing on federal lands as well as federal waters.
And then he also issued an executive order.
It was Executive Order 14008, which halted oil and gas leasing operations that were already going.
days after he said that he will no longer be allowing new leases.
And so according to the lawsuit, the lawsuit is citing this specific law.
It's called the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and Mineral Leasing Act.
And according to the lawsuit that was set out by the Louisiana Attorney General, this act set out specific statutory duties requiring executive agencies to further the expeditious and safe development of the abundant energy in the lands.
In compliance with those statutes, the Department of the Interior has for decades issued leases for the development of oil and natural gas on public lands and offshore waters.
And he says that basically the executive orders and the moratorium by the Biden administration are not legally sound.
And he's asking the Supreme Court, or rather the court in question, to strike them down and also not allow them to go into effect ever again.
Basically not allow the Biden administration to create a repackaged version of them if they are struck down.
So we'll see where this goes.
We'll see where this lawsuit will go.
Otherwise, again, this article will be in the description box below if you want to check it out.
And now Roman in the studio, back to you.
And now let's talk a little bit about the Supreme Court.
Two days ago, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Facebook.
What was the appeal about?
Well, Facebook is currently facing a class-action lawsuit which alleges that they secretly, and illegally, track the online activities of their users when they were not on Facebook.
Basically, the lawsuit alleges that they were tracking people while they were browsing other websites.
Which, if true, could be in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act.
That class action lawsuit, by the way, is currently valued at $15 billion.
Now, in an earlier ruling from last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, they said that Facebook users suffered a clear invasion of privacy.
Here's what that ruling said in part.
Facebook's user profiles would allegedly reveal an individual's likes, dislikes, interests, and habits over a significant amount of time without affording users a meaningful opportunity to control or prevent the unauthorized exploration of their private lives.
Then, after weighing all of the facts, the court agreed that the class action lawsuit can move forward, writing that,"...the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a clear invasion of the historically recognized right to privacy.
Therefore, plaintiffs have standing to pursue their privacy claims under the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Children's Internet Protection Act." And then afterwards, after this ruling, Facebook asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
However, as of two days ago, the Supreme Court rejected Facebook's appeal, and so this lawsuit will now move forward.
Now, one question you might be wondering is how come, if Facebook is so big, with so many users, why is this lawsuit only valued at $15 billion?
Well, that's because it's only suing Facebook for their actions between April of 2010 and September of 2011.
According to the court papers, after September of 2011, Facebook actually stopped its non-consensual tracking after it was exposed by a researcher.
And in their defense, Facebook is arguing, for one, that throughout the process they maintain some level of privacy standards.
Secondly, they said that the data collected was only to show users better content and more targeted ads.
And thirdly, they said that the data was not collected in an unfair manner.
As a part of their legal filing, they wrote this...
Facebook was not an uninvited interloper to a communication between two separate parties.
It was a direct participant.
Now, if you would like to read more details about this lawsuit, that link will be in the description box below this video for you to check out.
But while we are on the subject of Facebook, there is something else worth mentioning.
Two days ago, Facebook issued an announcement where, for one, they outlined a plan to combat what they're calling misinformation, and secondly, they revealed that they have taken down 1.3 billion fake accounts between October and December of last year.
Now, that is a tremendous amount of fake accounts to remove, 1.3 billion, particularly when you consider that Facebook claims to have only 2.7 billion monthly active users.
Now, in that statement, in that statement where they reveal that they deleted 1.3 billion accounts, they did not discuss the relationship between the deleted accounts and their overall accounts, whether those figures overlap, and if so, how many users they currently now have.
None of that was revealed.
Now, on the misinformation front, Guy Rosen, who is the Vice President of Integrity over at Facebook, he wrote that tackling misinformation actually requires addressing several challenges, including fake accounts, deceptive behavior, and misleading and harmful content.
Furthermore, he stated that they have a large group of more than 80 independent fact-checkers who review content in more than 60 languages.
And then, if these independent fact-checkers judge something to be untrue, the content's dissemination is limited.
How is it limited exactly?
Well, he says this.
When they write something as false, we reduce its distribution so fewer people see it, and add a warning label with more information for anyone who sees it.
We know that when a warning screen is placed on a post, 95% of the time people do not click to view it.
Can you imagine?
95% reduction in the amount of people who view something.
That is quite a lot of power for a private company with allegedly 2.7 billion users to have.
Now, in terms of what their focus is, Rosen said this.
Facebook suppresses the distribution of pages, groups, and domains who repeatedly share misinformation, with a particular emphasis on false claims about COVID-19 and vaccines and content that is intended to suppress voting.
And that, as a result, they've removed more than 12 million pieces of content about COVID-19 and vaccines.
If you'd like to read more about how the line between publishers and platforms are becoming increasingly murky and blurry, I'll throw that link into the description box below this video.
for you to check out.
And now lastly, besides subscribing to the Epoch Times via that link in the description box below, if you have an Instagram account, I would highly recommend that you follow me, Epoch Times Roman.
I routinely post on there with updates, with behind-the-scenes pictures and footage, as well as updates on stories that we're currently working on.
It's basically a great way for us to keep in touch seven days a week when we're not here making videos on YouTube.
Again, that's EpicTimesRoman on Instagram.
And now lastly, if you haven't already, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm.
Subscribe to this YouTube channel if you haven't already so that you can get honest news content delivered directly into your YouTube feed while they still allow it.
And until next time, I'm your host, Roman from The Epoch Times.
▲
Export Selection