instruction:
Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
question:
Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa only pay a £400 surcharge to use the NHS. This is the current level the international health surcharge is set at each year, but the taxes that people who come to work in the UK pay also goes towards things like the NHS. Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa incur average NHS costs of £625 per year. It’s unclear how the Conservatives have calculated this new figure and we’ve asked them for more information. Claim 1 of 3
answer:
Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa only pay a £400 surcharge to use the NHS.


question:
Social networks like Facebook and Twitter are often where the public expresses concern and even outrage over perceived miscarriages of justice. In recent years, internet users have been especially prolific in promoting awareness of a perceived tendency among some judges and prosecutors to seek and accept insufficient punishments for sexual crimes particularly against women and children. One such case emerged in 2018 and 2019 and involved the prosecution of Justin Schneider of Anchorage, Alaska who, according to one internet meme, served no jail time despite having seriously assaulted a woman he picked up outside a gas station in August 2017. On October 2018, Facebook user Ed Stonick posted a widely shared meme that contained a photograph of Schneider along with the following text, which some readers might find disturbing: GENOCIDE JUSTIN SCHNEIDER This is Justin Schneider, he is 34 years old and lives in Anchorage, Alaska. He is a white male who picked up a hitch-hiking indigenous female. He strangled her unconscious, masturbated over her body, and left her to die. This week he pled guilty in an Anchorage District Court. Because his victim survived he was given a plea deal. The kidnapping and sexual assault charges were dropped. He was given no time in jail and only received one year of probation. This is the face of American justice. This is the face of white privilege. This is the face of genocide. This fact check won’t examine the broader cultural issues raised by the meme and in other coverage of the Schneider case, namely the extent to which the American criminal justice system is relatively indifferent to crimes experienced by indigenous women, such as the woman at the center of this case. Rather, our article will evaluate the factual claims made in the meme. Much of the content of the meme is quite accurate, though it contains some errors. On 8 August 2017, Schneider pulled up in his vehicle and approached a woman who was standing outside a gas station in Anchorage. She entered his van and some time later, he attacked her, strangled her, masturbated over her and ejaculated on her, acts that Schneider later admitted in a subsequent civil case brought against him by the woman. Using a license plate number provided by the woman, police tracked down Schneider and arrested him on suspicion of first-degree kidnapping, first-degree harassment and second-degree assault. Schneider initially pleaded not guilty to all three charges. The woman claimed that Schneider had invited her into his vehicle under false pretenses, calling himself “Dan” and claiming to be an acquaintance of hers, allegations Schneider continues to deny. She also claimed that he had strangled her to the point of unconsciousness. Schneider has admitted strangling her, but denies doing so to the point of her losing consciousness. Despite facing three criminal charges, Schneider and his attorneys were able to persuade the office of Anchorage District Attorney Rick Allen to drop the charges of kidnapping and harassment, in exchange for Schneider pleading guilty to second-degree assault. On 19 September 2018, Alaska Superior Court Judge Michael Corey sentenced Schneider to two years in prison, with one year suspended, and three years of probation, as a result of the plea agreement with prosecutors. However, because Alaska law allows for time spent under house arrest to effectively be regarded as “time served,” Schneider was not required to serve the 12 months remaining on his prison sentence. After the sentencing, the state of Alaska’s Department of Law provided the following explanation for the plea agreement and sentence: Although Mr. Schneider received one year of jail time, Alaska law allows an offender to receive credit for any time spent on an ankle monitor or under house arrest against any jail sentence imposed. The Department of Law heard from a number of concerned citizens that the sentence imposed was too lenient. Criminal Division Director John Skidmore independently reviewed the case and concluded the sentence was consistent with, and reasonable, under current sentencing laws in Alaska. Mr. Schneider plead guilty to one count of assault in the second degree, a class B felony in Alaska, in exchange for the State’s dismissal of the remaining charges – notably, first-degree kidnapping and first-degree harassment. The State dismissed the most serious charge based on the conclusion that the State would be unable to prove the kidnapping at trial. Kidnapping requires that the victim be “restrained” or moved against his or her will. Additional investigation determined that the victim willingly got into Mr. Schneider’s vehicle and willingly drove with him to the location of the assault. Under these circumstances, the criminal charge of kidnapping (as defined under Alaska law) could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Schneider was convicted of the remaining most serious crime: second-degree assault. Based on Mr. Schneider’s lack of criminal history, the sentencing range for the offense was zero to two years in jail. “Though it is understandable that some feel his sentence was not sufficiently harsh,” Director Skidmore explained, “All prosecutors are ethically required to follow the law, no matter how disturbing the facts may be.” While the facts of this case were particularly disturbing, Mr. Schneider’s offensive physical contact with bodily fluid such as semen is not categorized as a sex crime under Alaska law. Despite this limitation, the prosecutor felt Mr. Schneider needed sex offender treatment. The only way to achieve that result was to have Mr. Schneider agree to the probation conditions. Thus, the prosecutor required Mr. Schneider to undergo sex offender treatment and comply with other monitoring conditions as a condition of the plea agreement. In November 2018, Alaskans voted to recall Corey from the bench, after a campaign that criticized his sentencing of Schneider. Speaking in March 2019, Corey said he and the prosecutors in the case were constrained by sentencing guidelines and Alaska state law, and described the outcome of the case as “a horrible result.” Also in November 2018, the woman filed a lawsuit against Schneider, seeking damages, compensation and legal fees and accusing him of assault and battery, negligence and inflicting emotional distress. In his response to the civil complaint, Schneider requested the case be dismissed but admitted to “tackling, strangling and ejaculating on” the woman, and accepted that he had “intentionally or recklessly caused  physical injury or emotional distress.” He denied having tricked the woman into entering his vehicle, and denied that she lost consciousness as a result of his strangling her. As of March 2019, the woman’s civil case against Schneider was still before the Alaska Superior Court. The meme was accurate in stating that Schneider had assaulted, strangled and masturbated over the woman — the core allegations against Schneider, all of which he has admitted. However, Schneider disputes the specific claim that the woman lost consciousness as a result of his strangling her, so we cannot definitively rule on the veracity of that particular allegation. While the meme claimed that Schneider was given one year’s probation, in fact Judge Corey gave him three years’ probation. That’s a significant discrepancy, even if it does not change the view, held by many observers, that Schneider’s punishment was woefully inadequate. Finally, Schneider did serve some jail time in August 2017, after his arrest and before his release on bail, but the principal claim in relation to his case is that his punishment did not include jail time. So the meme’s claim that “he was given no time in jail” is mostly accurate, since Corey did sentence Schneider to two years in prison, but he suspended one year and credited the remainder of the prison sentence with the time Schneider spent under house arrest while on bail. Thus, the actual effect of Schneider’s sentencing was that he did not have to go to jail as part of his punishment.
answer:
"Justin Schneider was ""given no jail time,"" despite having strangled and assaulted a hitchhiker in Anchorage, Alaska, in 2017."


question:
"On one of the biggest issues in the 2016 Republican primary -- immigration -- Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was nothing if not consistent during the second GOP presidential debate. Cruz, angling to be the primary field’s most hard-line candidate against illegal immigration, said at the CNN Reagan Library debate, ""A majority of the men and women on this stage have previously and publicly embraced amnesty. I am the only candidate on this stage who has never supported amnesty."" That was similar to something he said at the first debate, held in Cleveland and aired by Fox News in August -- that ""a majority of the candidates on this stage have supported amnesty. I have never supported amnesty."" We checked that claim and gave it a rating of . The stages were similar for the two debates, with the addition of former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina in the second debate. Does Cruz’s claim hold up? As we noted in our previous fact-check, the tough part of checking this claim is that ""amnesty"" is a vague term. Some consider amnesty to be anything less than deporting all illegal immigrants, while others think of amnesty as letting immigrants stay with no punishment or additional requirements. Cruz has been adamantly opposed to a pathway to citizenship, but he’s been quiet on whether he would support some other legal status for illegal immigrants. We’ve previously found that in modern politics, the standard for amnesty is the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, supported and signed by President Ronald Reagan. The law allowed illegal immigrants to become legal permanent residents if they met certain standards, such as proving they had been in the country for several years and paying back taxes and a fine. After meeting other requirements, the legal permanent residents could apply for a green card and eventually make their way toward citizenship. The law was widely described as an amnesty program. We do know Cruz considered the 2013 bipartisan Senate immigration proposal to be a form of amnesty and opposed the bill. The failed bill was similar to the Reagan law in that immigrants had to meet certain requirements before gaining legal status that put them on a path to citizenship, though the requirements are more stringent than the previous law. So we’ve used that bill as a rough standard for evaluating the positions of those who shared the debate stage with Cruz. We’ll also note that since Cruz used the past tense -- ""previously and publicly embraced amnesty"" -- we’re only interested in whether the candidates have taken this position in the past, not whether they do now, or whether they have gone back and forth on the policy. Three members of the debate field have expressed outright support for the Gang of Eight bill, so called after the bipartisan group of eight senators who proposed it in 2013. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., by Cruz’s standards, has been a clear supporter of amnesty, as he was a member of the Gang of Eight. At the time, he said the bill was ""not amnesty,"" and we rated that claim Half True because of the vague nature of the term ""amnesty."" Since then, Rubio has softened his support for a path to citizenship and emphasized border security, but he still supports passing immigration legislation. Fellow Floridian Jeb Bush, the former governor, said in March 2015 that he would put his support behind a Gang of Eight-style immigration bill that included a path to citizenship. Like Rubio, though, Bush insisted at the debate that his position is not amnesty, because his ideal plan requires illegal immigrants to meet certain requirements before gaining legal status. Recently, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has avoided saying whether he would support a path to citizenship, though he has suggested he would not blanket deport all illegal immigrants. But in 2013, asked by Fox if he would side with Cruz or the Gang of Eight, Huckabee said he would choose the latter -- though he emphasized an eventual immigration bill had to emphasize border security. He has also previously endorsed a path to citizenship. Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., did not support the Gang of Eight bill because he said it did not include strong enough provisions for ensuring reduced illegal immigration in the future. But in a March 2015 speech, Paul walked a fine line, supporting a path to some sort of normative legal status, though without using the word ""citizenship."" For the remaining candidates, we could not find their opinions on the Gang of Eight bill specifically, but all four have at some point said they supported a path either to citizenship or legal status, even if their position has since changed. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker no longer supports a path to citizenship, but he said in 2013 that ""it makes sense"" people could not only stay in the United States but get citizenship after overcoming penalties, waiting periods and other requirements. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson has declined to comment on the Gang of Eight bill. He has said that the solution for illegal immigrants currently in the United States is for them to go back to their home country, where they can apply for a visa and return legally. In Carson’s 2012 book, America the Beautiful, he said a path to citizenship is a moral choice. In 2010, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he supported a ""common-sense path to citizenship."" But this year, he said he’s changed his mind and no longer supports such a path. Ohio Gov. John Kasich said in 2014 and 2015 that he isn’t keen on a path to citizenship, but he’s open to the possibility -- especially because you can’t deport everyone who is already here, and it would help get lawmakers to a point of compromise on immigration legislation. Despite his fiery rhetoric regarding Mexican immigrants, real estate mogul Donald Trump hasn’t said many specifics about what he’d do regarding the illegal immigrants already here. He has said this year that he would support a ""merit-based"" system for some illegal immigrants earning their right to stay, echoing comments he made in 2011. Finally, the newcomer to the main debate stage -- Fiorina -- has also stated publicly that she is open to a path to legal status for at least some undocumented immigrants. In a June 2015 appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, she said, ""I think legal status is a possibility for sure. I think their children maybe can become citizens."" Our ruling Cruz said at the second Republican debate, ""A majority of the men and women on this stage have previously and publicly embraced amnesty. I am the only candidate on this stage who has never supported amnesty."" We’ll reiterate that many of these candidates have changed their position on what to do about undocumented immigrants already in the United States, and we’ll note once again that the definition of ""amnesty"" isn’t hard and fast. So what Cruz may consider amnesty might not be what any of these candidates considers to be amnesty. Still, as far as we can tell, Cruz is the only one on the CNN debate stage who has never plainly supported something like a path to citizenship or some other form of legal status."
answer:

A majority of the men and women on this stage have previously and publicly embraced amnesty. I am the only candidate on this stage who has never supported amnesty.