SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Incarceration should not be a for-profit business," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.), arguing for an end to for-profit prisons on the state level. (Photo: Jonathan Haeber/flickr/cc)
Progressives and prison reform advocates hailed the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) announcement Thursday that it would phase out federal private prisons--and celebrated the resulting plummet in private prison stocks--but many also argued that the decision does not go far enough.
"Until DHS and state governments around the country break ties with these corporations, justice in this country will continue to be undermined by private profit motives, and innocent people will continue to suffer."
--Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other progressive members of Congress issued statements Wednesday urging President Barack Obama and state governments to go further and end the use of for-profit state prisons and private detention facilities for immigrants.
"We have got to end the private prison racket in America as quickly as possible," Sanders said.
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said: "Until [the Department of Homeland Security] and state governments around the country break ties with these corporations, justice in this country will continue to be undermined by private profit motives, and innocent people will continue to suffer. This isn't simply unjust detainment, this is the exploitation of human captivity--including young children--for the sake of money."
"Today's announcement from the Justice Department is an important first step," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). "But it is not enough. [...] Incarceration should not be a for-profit business."
And as Common Dreams reported, the Center for Constitutional Rights urged the government to address private detention facilities in a statement: "Locking up immigrants, including families and children fleeing extreme violence in Central America, should not be a source of profit for huge corporations, particularly given private contractors' terrible record providing inadequate medical and mental health care to dying immigrants."
In response to the push against private prisons, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a statement [pdf] reaffirming its resolve to use for-profit facilities to detain immigrants--and so the progressive fight against that system continues.
Meanwhile, many activists and journalists also noted that ending the country's reliance on private prisons will not go far toward resolving the larger crisis of mass incarceration.
As Juleyka Lantigua-Williams wrote in The Atlantic:
About 22,000 of 193,000 federal prisoners are held in [for-profit] facilities, adding up to 11 percent of the population. Though meaningful as a gesture of the government's commitment to reducing the number of people in prison, the [DOJ's] move will have limited impact on the 2.2 million people in federal and state custody.
[...] While any reduction in the federal prison population will be welcomed by those released, their families, and by reform advocates, the majority of inmates reside in state or county facilities. Only one in eight federal inmates was in a private facility in 2015. Consistent review of and changes to federal and state sentencing guidelines, more humane pre-trial bargaining by prosecutors of low-level offenders, increased used of probation instead of jail time, and a more judicious application of bail practices would do far more to reduce the incarcerated population [pdf]. Those actions would also mean real strides toward a less punitive penal system.
Indeed, as Sarah Lazare observed in AlterNet, "While private prisons have been rightfully rebuked for their human rights abuses, they ultimately are not the key driver behind mass incarceration."
Moreover, there are still many venues for profiteering within the public prison system, as Truthout explored in an in-depth report in 2014: "Services that had previously been provided by the jail or prison, such as medical care, transportation, phone and communication services, food, and even money exchanges, are increasingly handled by private companies," the progressive outlet observed. For example, Bank of America was awarded a contract by the federal government to process inmates' money transfers--a venue of easy profit within the public prison system.
And so the DOJ's decision to phase out for-profit federal prisons "is another example of a more symbolic prison reform, which is what the prison reforms of the last few years have been," as Dan Berger, the author of Captive Nation: Black Prison Organizing in the Civil Rights Era, told Lazare. "It makes a difference to some people's lives, but it is nowhere near the sweeping and realizable changes that are needed."
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Progressives and prison reform advocates hailed the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) announcement Thursday that it would phase out federal private prisons--and celebrated the resulting plummet in private prison stocks--but many also argued that the decision does not go far enough.
"Until DHS and state governments around the country break ties with these corporations, justice in this country will continue to be undermined by private profit motives, and innocent people will continue to suffer."
--Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other progressive members of Congress issued statements Wednesday urging President Barack Obama and state governments to go further and end the use of for-profit state prisons and private detention facilities for immigrants.
"We have got to end the private prison racket in America as quickly as possible," Sanders said.
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said: "Until [the Department of Homeland Security] and state governments around the country break ties with these corporations, justice in this country will continue to be undermined by private profit motives, and innocent people will continue to suffer. This isn't simply unjust detainment, this is the exploitation of human captivity--including young children--for the sake of money."
"Today's announcement from the Justice Department is an important first step," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). "But it is not enough. [...] Incarceration should not be a for-profit business."
And as Common Dreams reported, the Center for Constitutional Rights urged the government to address private detention facilities in a statement: "Locking up immigrants, including families and children fleeing extreme violence in Central America, should not be a source of profit for huge corporations, particularly given private contractors' terrible record providing inadequate medical and mental health care to dying immigrants."
In response to the push against private prisons, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a statement [pdf] reaffirming its resolve to use for-profit facilities to detain immigrants--and so the progressive fight against that system continues.
Meanwhile, many activists and journalists also noted that ending the country's reliance on private prisons will not go far toward resolving the larger crisis of mass incarceration.
As Juleyka Lantigua-Williams wrote in The Atlantic:
About 22,000 of 193,000 federal prisoners are held in [for-profit] facilities, adding up to 11 percent of the population. Though meaningful as a gesture of the government's commitment to reducing the number of people in prison, the [DOJ's] move will have limited impact on the 2.2 million people in federal and state custody.
[...] While any reduction in the federal prison population will be welcomed by those released, their families, and by reform advocates, the majority of inmates reside in state or county facilities. Only one in eight federal inmates was in a private facility in 2015. Consistent review of and changes to federal and state sentencing guidelines, more humane pre-trial bargaining by prosecutors of low-level offenders, increased used of probation instead of jail time, and a more judicious application of bail practices would do far more to reduce the incarcerated population [pdf]. Those actions would also mean real strides toward a less punitive penal system.
Indeed, as Sarah Lazare observed in AlterNet, "While private prisons have been rightfully rebuked for their human rights abuses, they ultimately are not the key driver behind mass incarceration."
Moreover, there are still many venues for profiteering within the public prison system, as Truthout explored in an in-depth report in 2014: "Services that had previously been provided by the jail or prison, such as medical care, transportation, phone and communication services, food, and even money exchanges, are increasingly handled by private companies," the progressive outlet observed. For example, Bank of America was awarded a contract by the federal government to process inmates' money transfers--a venue of easy profit within the public prison system.
And so the DOJ's decision to phase out for-profit federal prisons "is another example of a more symbolic prison reform, which is what the prison reforms of the last few years have been," as Dan Berger, the author of Captive Nation: Black Prison Organizing in the Civil Rights Era, told Lazare. "It makes a difference to some people's lives, but it is nowhere near the sweeping and realizable changes that are needed."
Progressives and prison reform advocates hailed the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) announcement Thursday that it would phase out federal private prisons--and celebrated the resulting plummet in private prison stocks--but many also argued that the decision does not go far enough.
"Until DHS and state governments around the country break ties with these corporations, justice in this country will continue to be undermined by private profit motives, and innocent people will continue to suffer."
--Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other progressive members of Congress issued statements Wednesday urging President Barack Obama and state governments to go further and end the use of for-profit state prisons and private detention facilities for immigrants.
"We have got to end the private prison racket in America as quickly as possible," Sanders said.
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said: "Until [the Department of Homeland Security] and state governments around the country break ties with these corporations, justice in this country will continue to be undermined by private profit motives, and innocent people will continue to suffer. This isn't simply unjust detainment, this is the exploitation of human captivity--including young children--for the sake of money."
"Today's announcement from the Justice Department is an important first step," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). "But it is not enough. [...] Incarceration should not be a for-profit business."
And as Common Dreams reported, the Center for Constitutional Rights urged the government to address private detention facilities in a statement: "Locking up immigrants, including families and children fleeing extreme violence in Central America, should not be a source of profit for huge corporations, particularly given private contractors' terrible record providing inadequate medical and mental health care to dying immigrants."
In response to the push against private prisons, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a statement [pdf] reaffirming its resolve to use for-profit facilities to detain immigrants--and so the progressive fight against that system continues.
Meanwhile, many activists and journalists also noted that ending the country's reliance on private prisons will not go far toward resolving the larger crisis of mass incarceration.
As Juleyka Lantigua-Williams wrote in The Atlantic:
About 22,000 of 193,000 federal prisoners are held in [for-profit] facilities, adding up to 11 percent of the population. Though meaningful as a gesture of the government's commitment to reducing the number of people in prison, the [DOJ's] move will have limited impact on the 2.2 million people in federal and state custody.
[...] While any reduction in the federal prison population will be welcomed by those released, their families, and by reform advocates, the majority of inmates reside in state or county facilities. Only one in eight federal inmates was in a private facility in 2015. Consistent review of and changes to federal and state sentencing guidelines, more humane pre-trial bargaining by prosecutors of low-level offenders, increased used of probation instead of jail time, and a more judicious application of bail practices would do far more to reduce the incarcerated population [pdf]. Those actions would also mean real strides toward a less punitive penal system.
Indeed, as Sarah Lazare observed in AlterNet, "While private prisons have been rightfully rebuked for their human rights abuses, they ultimately are not the key driver behind mass incarceration."
Moreover, there are still many venues for profiteering within the public prison system, as Truthout explored in an in-depth report in 2014: "Services that had previously been provided by the jail or prison, such as medical care, transportation, phone and communication services, food, and even money exchanges, are increasingly handled by private companies," the progressive outlet observed. For example, Bank of America was awarded a contract by the federal government to process inmates' money transfers--a venue of easy profit within the public prison system.
And so the DOJ's decision to phase out for-profit federal prisons "is another example of a more symbolic prison reform, which is what the prison reforms of the last few years have been," as Dan Berger, the author of Captive Nation: Black Prison Organizing in the Civil Rights Era, told Lazare. "It makes a difference to some people's lives, but it is nowhere near the sweeping and realizable changes that are needed."
"This was an illegal act," said U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis.
A federal court judge on Sunday declared the Trump administration's refusal to return a man they sent to an El Salvadoran prison in "error" as "totally lawless" behavior and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to repatriate the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, within 24 hours.
In a 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis doubled down on an order issued Friday, which Department of Justice lawyers representing the administration said was an affront to his executive authority.
"This was an illegal act," Xinis said of DHS Secretary Krisi Noem's attack on Abrego Garcia's rights, including his deportation and imprisonment.
"Defendants seized Abrego Garcia without any lawful authority; held him in three separate domestic detention centers without legal basis; failed to present him to any immigration judge or officer; and forcibly transported him to El Salvador in direct contravention of [immigration law]," the decision states.
Once imprisoned in El Salvador, the order continues, "U.S. officials secured his detention in a facility that, by design, deprives its detainees of adequate food, water, and shelter, fosters routine violence; and places him with his persecutors."
Trump's DOJ appealed Friday's order to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, but that court has not yet ruled on the request to stay the order from Xinis, which says Abrego Garcia should be returned to the United States no later than Monday.
"You'd be a fool to think Trump won't go after others he dislikes," warned Sen. Ron Wyden, "including American citizens."
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon slammed the Trump administration over the weekend in response to fresh reporting that the Department of Homeland Security has intensified its push for access to confidential data held by the Internal Revenue Service—part of a sweeping effort to target immigrant workers who pay into the U.S. tax system yet get little or nothing in return.
Wyden denounced the effort, which had the fingerprints of the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, all over it.
"What Trump and Musk's henchmen are doing by weaponizing taxpayer data is illegal, this abuse of the immigrant community is a moral atrocity, and you'd be a fool to think Trump won't go after others he dislikes, including American citizens," said Wyden, ranking member of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, on Saturday.
Last week, the White House admitted one of the men it has sent to a prison in El Salvador was detained and deported in schackles in "error." Despite the admitted mistake, and facing a lawsuit for his immediate return, the Trump administration says a federal court has no authority over the president to make such an order.
"Even though the Trump administration claims it's focused on undocumented immigrants, it's obvious that they do not care when they make mistakes and ruin the lives of legal residents and American citizens in the process," Wyden continued. "A repressive scheme on the scale of what they're talking about at the IRS would lead to hundreds if not thousands of those horrific mistakes, and the people who are disappeared as a result may never be returned to their families."
According to the Washington Post reporting on Saturday:
Federal immigration officials are seeking to locate up to 7 million people suspected of being in the United States unlawfully by accessing confidential tax data at the Internal Revenue Service, according to six people familiar with the request, a dramatic escalation in how the Trump administration aims to use the tax system to detain and deport immigrants.
Officials from the Department of Homeland Security had previously sought the IRS’s help in finding 700,000 people who are subject to final removal orders, and they had asked the IRS to use closely guarded taxpayer data systems to provide names and addresses.
As the Post notes, it would be highly unusual, and quite possibly unlawful, for the IRS to share such confidential data. "Normally," the newspaper reports, "personal tax information—even an individual's name and address—is considered confidential and closely guarded within the IRS."
Wyden warned that those who violate the law by disclosing personal tax data face the risk of civil sanction or even prosecution.
"While Trump's sycophants and the DOGE boys may be a lost cause," Wyden said, "IRS personnel need to think long and hard about whether they want to be a part of an effort to round up innocent people and send them to be locked away in foreign torture prisons."
"I'm sure Trump has promised pardons to the people who will commit crimes in the process of abusing legally-protected taxpayer data, but violations of taxpayer privacy laws carry hefty civil penalties too, and Trump cannot pardon anybody out from under those," he said. "I'm going to demand answers from the acting IRS commissioner immediately about this outrageous abuse of the agency.”
"I think that the Democratic Party has to make a fundamental decision," says the independent Senator from Vermont, "and I'm not sure that they will make the right decision."
"I think when we talk about America is a democracy, I think we should rephrase it, call it a 'pseudo-democracy.'"
That's what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Sunday morning in response to questions from CBS News about the state of the nation, with President Donald Trump gutting the federal government from head to toe, challenging constitutional norms, allowing his cabinet of billionaires to run key agencies they philosophically want to destroy, and empowering Elon Musk—the world's richest person—to run roughshod over public education, undermine healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and attack Social Security.
Taking a weekend away from his ongoing "Fight Oligarchy" tour, which has drawn record crowds in both right-leaning and left-leaning regions of the country over recent weeks, Sanders said the problem is deeply entrenched now in the nation's political system—and both major parties have a lot to answer for.
"One of the other concerns when I talk about oligarchy," Sanders explained to journalist Robert Acosta, "it's not just massive income and wealth inequality. It's not just the power of the billionaire class. These guys, led by Musk—and as a result of this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision—have now allowed billionaires essentially to own our political process. So, I think when we talk about America is a democracy, I think we should rephrase it, call it a 'pseudo-democracy.' And it's not just Musk and the Republicans; it's billionaires in the Democratic Party as well."
Sanders said that while he's been out on the road in various places, what he perceives—from Americans of all stripes—is a shared sense of dread and frustration.
"I think I'm seeing fear, and I'm seeing anger," he said. "Sixty percent of our people are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Media doesn't talk about it. We don't talk about it enough here in Congress."
In a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Friday night, just before the Republican-controlled chamber was able to pass a sweeping spending resolution that will lay waste to vital programs like Medicaid and food assistance to needy families so that billionaires and the ultra-rich can enjoy even more tax giveaways, Sanders said, "What we have is a budget proposal in front of us that makes bad situations much worse and does virtually nothing to protect the needs of working families."
LIVE: I'm on the floor now talking about Trump's totally absurd budget.
They got it exactly backwards. No tax cuts for billionaires by cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for Americans. https://t.co/ULB2KosOSJ
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) April 4, 2025
What the GOP spending plan does do, he added, "is reward wealthy campaign contributors by providing over $1 trillion in tax breaks for the top one percent."
"I wish my Republican friends the best of luck when they go home—if they dare to hold town hall meetings—and explain to their constituents why they think, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it's a great idea to give tax breaks to billionaires and cut Medicaid, education, and other programs that working class families desperately need."
On Saturday, millions of people took to the street in coordinated protests against the Trump administration's attack on government, the economy, and democracy itself.
Voiced at many of the rallies was also a frustration with the failure of the Democrats to stand up to Trump and offer an alternative vision for what the nation can be. In his CBS News interview, Sanders said the key question Democrats need to be asking is the one too many people in Washington, D.C. tend to avoid.
"Why are [the Democrats] held in so low esteem?" That's the question that needs asking, he said.
"Why has the working class in this country largely turned away from them? And what do you have to do to recapture that working class? Do you think working people are voting for Trump because he wants to give massive tax breaks to billionaires and cut Social Security and Medicare? I don't think so. It's because people say, 'I am hurting. Democratic Party has talked a good game for years. They haven't done anything.' So, I think that the Democratic Party has to make a fundamental decision, and I'm not sure that they will make the right decision, which side are they on? [Will] they continue to hustle large campaign contributions from very, very wealthy people, or do they stand with the working class?"
The next leg of Sanders' "Fight Oligarchy' tour will kick off next Saturday, with stops in California, Utah, and Idaho over four days.
"The American people, whether they are Democrats, Republicans or Independents, do not want billionaires to control our government or buy our elections," said Sanders. "That is why I will be visiting Republican-held districts all over the Western United States. When we are organized and fight back, we can defeat oligarchy."