World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Ahh. TPC "A joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Policy_Center#Funding
Urban institute: "According to a study by U.S. News & World Report most political campaign donations by Urban Institute employees go to Democratic politicians. Between 2003 and 2010, Urban Institute employees' made $79,529 in political contributions, none of which went to the Republican Party."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute#History_and_funding
So hardly unbiased, but the bigger issue is the partner Brookings Institution:
"A 2014 investigation by The New York Times found Brookings to be among more than a dozen Washington, D.C.–based research groups and think tanks to have received payments from foreign governments while encouraging American government officials to support policies aligned with those foreign governments' agendas.[112] The Times published documents showing that Brookings accepted grants from Norway with specific policy requests and helped it gain access to U.S. government officials, as well as other "deliverables".[113][114] In June 2014, Norway agreed to make an additional $4 million donation to Brookings.[112] Several legal specialists who examined the documents told the paper that the language of the transactions "appeared to necessitate Brookings filing as a foreign agent" under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.[114]
The government of Qatar was named by The New York Times as "the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings", reportedly contributing $14.8 million over a four-year period. A former visiting fellow at a Brookings affiliate in Qatar reportedly said that "he had been told during his job interview that he could not take positions critical of the Qatar government in papers".[112] Brookings officials denied any connection between the views of their funders and their scholars' work, citing reports that questioned the Qatari government's education reform efforts and criticized its support of militants in Syria. But Brookings officials reportedly acknowledged that they meet with Qatari government officials regularly.[112]
In 2018, The Washington Post reported that Brookings accepted funding from Huawei from 2012 to 2018.[115] A report by the Center for International Policy's Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative of the top 50 think tanks on the University of Pennsylvania's Global Go-To Think Tanks rating index found that between 2014 and 2018, Brookings received the third-highest amount of funding from outside the United States compared to other think tanks, with a total of more than $27 million.[116] In 2022, Brookings president John R. Allen resigned amid an FBI probe into lobbying on behalf of Qatar."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution#Funding_controversies
It should also be noted that the Cato model that the claim in the article is based upon is developed by an organization that is pro immigration and has connections to the Ayn Rand institute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#Ideological_relationships
Lol none of these smear attempts prove the studies are flawed. You can dig up political donations and controversies for any organization in the country. It says everything that you couldn't engage with the actual data and resorted to ad hominems instead.
What a cowardly little racist weasel you are.
I am a coward because I don't have the time to break down an economic model? Or am I a cowardly racist weasel because I don't swallow that immigration of individuals from less stable and progressive countries make the country to which they migrate, less stable and progressive?
If you want a relevant quote on why Cato arrived at their findings, maybe this will help "In another recent paper, this one looking at all costs and tax payments using a different survey, Cato again assigns the welfare costs of immigrants’ U.S.-born children to the U.S.-born. That study even excluded the roughly $200 billion spent educating these children. Of course we should educate the U.S.-born children of immigrants. But as is true of welfare, the impact on the education system must be considered when setting immigration policy. Any analysis that fails to do so does profound disservice to the public discourse.
Another important issue with Cato’s welfare approach is the decision to report the average dollar value of benefits rather than use rates. Because the SIPP does a better job capturing use of welfare than the amount recipients receive, Cato has to make various adjustments to the values in the SIPP. None of this means that reporting dollar amounts is a terrible idea. But it does mean that their results are dependent on all the assumptions they make."
https://cis.org/Oped/CIS-vs-Cato-Immigrant-Welfare-Whos-Right