Commentary |
Anti-Immigrant legislation doesn’t serve anyone but prison contractors

by Sulma Arias
      OtherWords



The Laken Riley Act is an assault on due process, undermining all of our rights to make for-profit prison CEOs richer.

You’re reading the words of a formerly undocumented immigrant.

When I fled El Salvador four decades ago, I was 12 years old and alone. I was escaping the country’s civil war, where U.S.-backed death squads had made murders and rape our daily reality.

I reunited with my sisters, my only surviving family, in Wichita, Kansas. Once there, I helped open churches, started businesses, and raised three daughters. There were times I wasn’t sure we’d make it to the end of the month, but I was grateful for the sense of peace and security we were able to create here.

That’s why I’m so alarmed that the new Republican-led Congress has chosen to open with a bill, H.R. 29,  that strikes fear in the hearts of immigrant families all across the country. This bill would strip judges of discretion and require immigrants to be detained and subject to deportation if they’re accused — not even convicted — of even minor offenses like shoplifting.

This major assault on due process won’t keep anyone safer. It would terrorize all immigrants in this country, who studies show are much less likely to commit crimes of any kind than native-born Americans.

So who benefits from H.R. 29? Private prison corporations like CoreCivic and GEO Group, who made a fortune during the last Trump administration by running private prisons for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

CoreCivic and GEO kept immigrants and asylum seekers in inhumane and toxic conditions with poor hygiene and exposed women and children to sexual predators. Under this new law, cynical executives will siphon off more public dollars, and wealthy investors will reap more rewards, from abusing and demonizing people seeking refuge from violence or poverty.

When Trump won, private prison stocks soared. Why? Because investors anticipated making a fortune detaining immigrants. More than 90 percent of migrants detained by ICE end up in for-profit facilities.

GEO Group, which maxed out its campaign contributions to Trump, told its investors they could make almost $400 million per year supporting “future needs for ICE and the federal government” in a second Trump term. Their stock price nearly doubled in November.

Whether those detained are guilty or not, CoreCivic and GEO get paid. That’s what H.R. 29 is for: advancing corporate greed, not protecting Americans.

We all have a stake in stopping private prison corporations from becoming more powerful, regardless of our language, race, gender, or community. In addition to jailing immigrants, for-profit prison companies also look for ways to put citizens in prison more often — and for longer — so they can make more money.

Whenever we allow fundamental rights to be taken away, we erode our shared humanity and diminish all of our rights and freedoms.

The people behind H.R. 29 want us to be afraid of each other so we won’t stand together. They want to be able to barge into our homes, schools, and churches to take our neighbors and loved ones away. They want workers to be too scared to stand up to their bosses’ abuse. All so their donors in the private prison industry can make more money.

Democrats will need to find their way in this new Congress. Falling in line behind nativist fear-mongers who take millions in campaign contributions from the private-prison industry is not the right way to do it.

Americans demand better. We want true leadership with an affirmative vision for the future of this country and dignity for all people, including immigrants.

H.R. 29 targets whole communities because of the language we speak and the color of our skin. Instead, our elected leaders, regardless of party, must work to address people’s needs through building an economy that works for all of us, not just the wealthy few.

is executive director of People’s Action, the nation’s largest network of grassroots power-building groups, with more than a million members in 30 states. This op-ed was adapted from OurFuture.org and distributed for syndication by OtherWords.org.

Read our latest health and medical news

Viewpoint |
The rise of “Corporation Communism” is undermining democracy

by Jacque Trahan

In 2010, the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision redefined American politics. By granting corporations the same free speech rights as individuals, it allowed them to spend unlimited sums on elections. While proponents called it a victory for free expression, it has instead created a dangerous paradox: a system I call “corporation communism.”

At first glance, the term might seem contradictory. After all, corporations are synonymous with free-market capitalism, while communism is the antithesis of that system. But beneath the surface, there’s an unsettling resemblance.

Much like the centralized control of resources in communist regimes, corporations have amassed outsized power, dominating markets, influencing legislation, and concentrating wealth. This centralization doesn’t reflect the competition capitalism promises; instead, it mirrors the monopolistic tendencies of an authoritarian state.

As President Theodore Roosevelt once said, “The corporation is the creature of the State, and it must be held to strict accountability to the people.” Roosevelt—a Republican—championed trust-busting because he understood that unchecked corporate power was a direct threat to democracy. His wisdom is more relevant now than ever.

How We Got Here
The Citizens United decision unleashed billions in corporate spending, turning elections into auctions. Candidates no longer vie for votes alone; they chase dollars from the wealthiest donors. Policies that serve public interests—affordable healthcare, climate action, workers’ rights—are sidelined for those favoring corporate profits.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, warned during the Great Depression: "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself." Today, corporate lobbying often overwhelms the will of the people, making FDR’s cautionary words painfully prophetic.

This system fosters what I call "economic elitism," where a handful of powerful entities dictate the rules. From healthcare and energy to tech and agriculture, monopolies have reduced competition, stifling innovation and raising costs for everyday Americans.

Why Call It 'Corporation Communism'?
Though the term may sound provocative, the parallels are striking:
      
  • Centralized Power: Just as a communist state controls resources, corporations dominate entire sectors, from Big Tech to Big Pharma.
  •       
  • Loss of Choice: Consolidation through mergers limits competition, leaving consumers fewer options—whether in broadband providers or news outlets.
  •       
  • Suppression of Dissent: Employees who speak out often face retaliation, while public critics risk lawsuits or smear campaigns.
  •      
  • Reverse Redistribution: Wealth is siphoned upward, enriching executives and shareholders, much like the privileges enjoyed by elites in authoritarian regimes.
  • The Threat to Democracy
    Unchecked corporate power corrodes democratic values. Voters’ voices are drowned out by well-funded lobbying and attack ads. Local businesses are crushed under monopolistic practices, reducing entrepreneurship—the backbone of a healthy economy.

    President Dwight D. Eisenhower, another Republican, once warned in his farewell address: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence… by the military-industrial complex." His words echo today, as corporate influence extends far beyond the military into nearly every aspect of policymaking.

    How We Fight Back
    Reversing “corporation communism” requires bold action:
          
  • Overturn Citizens United: Campaign finance reform is essential to restore fair elections.
  •       
  • Break Up Monopolies: Enforce antitrust laws to dismantle corporate giants and promote competition.
  •       
  • Demand Transparency: Require corporations to disclose political contributions and lobbying activities.
  •       
  • Empower Workers: Strengthen unions and worker protections to ensure fair wages and working conditions.
  • A Call to Action
    The promise of capitalism is opportunity for all—not unchecked power for a few. By framing this issue as "corporation communism," we reveal the irony of a system that cloaks monopolistic control in the rhetoric of freedom.

    Leaders across political lines—Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower—recognized the dangers of unchecked power, whether from corporations or governments. Their words remind us that democracy thrives only when power is accountable to the people.

    It’s time to reclaim democracy from those who would buy it out from under us. Let’s make sure our government answers to the people—not corporations.

    Based in Lafayette, Louisiana, Jacque Trahan loves to travel. "I save most of my money for this alone, concerts, festivals, video games with friends, I stream from time to time (but need to update my pc), and enhancing my coding skills." Jacque hopes to become a data engineer.

    Commentary |
    Unlikely bedfellows: How platform companies shortchange ride-share drivers and adult content creators alike

    by Hannah Wohl, University of California, Santa Barbara
           Lindsey Cameron, University of Pennsylvania


    navigation app
    Ride-hailing drivers, gig workers, and content creators join their respective industry for the same reason: autonomy. It allows workers to do their thing how and when they want for the most part.

    Photo: Yusuf Gündüz/PEXELS

    On a porn set in California’s San Fernando Valley, a performer we’ll call Jake explains why he joined the industry after dabbling in escorting. He says he was drawn to porn work because of the freedom he finds as an independent contractor.

    He works 10 to 15 hours a week on average and spends the rest of his time home with his wife and son. The best thing about his job, he says, is that he can leave any time he wants: “I have nobody in charge of me.”

    Jake – in keeping with standard research practice in our field, we’ve referred to everyone in this article by pseudonyms – is far from the only worker in his field who likes being his own boss. With the rise of subscription-based platforms such as OnlyFans in recent years, the porn industry has transformed into a hybrid labor market: Performers often produce their own content for online subscribers while also working for traditional studios.

    Across the country, near Detroit, a strikingly similar conversation takes place with a ride-hailing driver, Jamir. In contrast to traditional office workers, whom Jamir describes as “being in a Matrix type of situation … stuck to their jobs, stuck to their time,” he views himself as “seeing the whole world.” Emphasizing the flexibility and earnings potential of driving, he says, “If I need $1,000 in one week, I can get it. … At a job, I couldn’t do that without tons of overtime and approvals.”

    While Jake’s and Jamir’s daily work is different, the incentives, risks and pressures of their jobs are surprisingly alike. We know this because, as a sociologist and an organizational theorist, we’ve spent years researching the porn industry and the ride-hailing industry, respectively. We’ve studied OnlyFans and the studio-based porn industry, ride-hailing platforms such as Lyft and Uber, and other gig platforms, including TaskRabbit, Instacart and DoorDash.


    As independent contractors, both workers lack many of the protections of salaried employees; the next gig is never guaranteed.

    And by “studying,” we don’t just mean the kind you do in the library. To pay homage to one of the forefathers of sociology, Robert Park, we got the seat of our pants dirty by directly speaking with, observing and even working alongside people like Jake and Jamir. We’ve interviewed hundreds of workers and observed these industries up close, from helping film OnlyFans shoots in performers’ bedrooms to ferrying ride-hailing passengers around town.

    One of our most interesting findings is that porn performers and ride-hailing drivers often join their industry for the same reason: autonomy. While autonomy can have different meanings, for these workers it usually entails flexible scheduling, the ability to set their overall earnings and the freedom to turn down bad work offers.

    OnlyFans and other gig platforms promise autonomy for workers. An OnlyFans ad exhorts prospective creators to “Earn money doing what you love while making use of our features” and “Set your own price,” while Uber and Lyft ads entice drivers to “Be your own boss” and “Earn money on your own schedule.”

    But do these platforms make good on their promise?

    The illusion of worker autonomy

    When Jake is asked whether he has ever actually walked off a porn shoot, he admits that he hasn’t.

    Similarly, Jamir concedes that he accepts basically any ride request and is “here to make money.”

    While Jake and Jamir could theoretically decline work or quit a gig, it would be a costly move.

    As independent contractors, both workers lack many of the protections of salaried employees; the next gig is never guaranteed. In the porn industry, where people move daily between different studio sets and independently produce shoots for OnlyFans, reputations spread through gossip. Declining or quitting a gig can damage a performer’s prospects. On other gig platforms, workers’ reputations are often rendered visible through ratings on apps that affect their likelihood of being matched to future gigs.


    Workers often report feeling frustrated because they don’t understand how the algorithms that manage them make decisions that affect their livelihoods.

    Jake and Jamir face the same illusion of schedule flexibility: They’ve escaped the dreaded 9-to-5 and, as independent contractors, can ostensibly turn down any gig. But if they do, platforms and others involved in their work have mechanisms with which to punish them.

    First, like traditional gatekeepers such as agents and directors, gig platforms can blacklist workers by making them appear unavailable or less available for work. Platforms may downgrade those who decline rides or orders, assigning them to lower-paid or lower-quality matches. For example, Salvatore, a New York City driver, blames a ride-hailing company for robbing him of income by matching him only with rides going outside the city during high-demand times.

    On other gig platforms such as Upwork or TaskRabbit, the search engine algorithms can make these workers’ profiles less visible to customers. Workers often report feeling frustrated because they don’t understand how the algorithms that manage them make decisions that affect their livelihoods.

    OnlyFans draws an implicit contrast to these gig platforms and social media platforms in its marketing: “OnlyFans has zero algorithms. Your fans see everything you post.” But OnlyFans doesn’t set porn performers free from algorithms. Due to its limited search function, performers must rely heavily on other social media platforms and their algorithms to drive traffic to their OnlyFans accounts.

    Nor are porn performers free from blacklisting. Porn performers who juggle work across OnlyFans and studios use agents for studio bookings. Performers frequently report that agents blacklist those who decline shoots or prove otherwise noncompliant by telling directors that the performer is unavailable to work on requested days.

    Second, gig platforms can “deplatform” workers by removing content and workers from their app. Ride-hailing drivers regularly complain of being blocked from the app while the company “investigates” customer complaints, which are often customer scams, and have little means of input, let alone recourse, in this process. (Asked about this issue, an Uber spokesman noted the company had recently taken steps to make its deactivation processes fairer.)

    Another driver, James, tells us that he was blocked without notice when the app notified him that a customer accused him of sexual misconduct. Three days of lost income later, after countless unanswered messages and unhelpful phone calls, he was reinstated. The platform said it had made an error, intending to flag another driver’s account.

    OnlyFans may present itself as an ally to content creators, stating that it is unlike algorithmically mediated gig platforms, but it and other social media platforms similarly remove specific content and content creators who supposedly violate policies regarding explicit and obscene content, often providing vague reasons for doing so.

    In extreme cases, platforms can deplatform entire classes of workers. In 2021, OnlyFans notoriously announced that it was removing all pornographic accounts in what was widely seen as an attempt to convert the platform to a mainstream social media company. After widespread backlash from its content creators, the company reversed this decision five days later.

    Citing the “scare,” Sasha, a porn performer whose earnings of over $400,000 USD per year put her in the top 1% of OnlyFans content creators, says, “I realized I shouldn’t put my eggs all in one basket.” She tried to reduce her financial dependence on OnlyFans by making accounts on competitor platforms, such as Fansly, which marketed itself as a porn-worker-friendly alternative. But Sasha estimates that over 90% of her income still comes from OnlyFans, while her Fansly earnings peaked at around 3%.


    Workers join these labor markets to escape “the man,” only to find the man replaced by the often opaque logic of platforms and their algorithms.

    OnlyFans’ monopoly over subscription-based porn platforms leaves even performers like Sasha, who have found lucrative earnings on the platform, in a precarious position.

    Platforms can further marginalize workers

    The unfulfilled promise of autonomy affects the most marginalized and vulnerable members of the workforce.

    In the ride-hailing industry, drivers are often men of color, many of them first-generation immigrants. Dependent on the platform’s income, and with limited outside options, these workers are more hesitant to make waves and challenge the platform’s authority, even if they could navigate the byzantine call-center trees and robo-support messages.

    Similarly, in the porn industry, female performers are especially vulnerable to the risks of being blacklisted or deplatformed. Porn consumers, most of whom identify as heterosexual men, view male performers as mere props for a scene, yet demand a constant turnover of “fresh faces” of female performers. We found that this means male performers can work more often for the same studio and rely less on agents for networking. In contrast, female performers see agents as essential to gaining connections to new studios.

    Female performers can become less dependent on their agents by simultaneously creating content on OnlyFans. But in doing so, they become more dependent on a platform that is liable to make capricious and arbitrarily enforced policies concerning acceptable content.

    Our immersion in the porn and ride-hailing industries brought us to a Kafkaesque conclusion: Workers join these labor markets to escape “the man,” only to find the man replaced by the often opaque logic of platforms and their algorithms.


    The Conversation

    Hannah Wohl, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara and Lindsey Cameron, Assistant Professor of Management, University of Pennsylvania

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Commentary |
    Am Yisrael Chai – It’s just a slogan, it is a way of life

    by Leor Sinai, Rabbi


    Am Yisrael Chai – It’s just a slogan, it is a way of life

    I remember growing up as a kid in Brooklyn singing the Am Yisrael Chai chant, we’d sing it with great excitement and with great pride. And then I remember myself as a young adult, growing into my career as a professional Jew working for various nonprofits, always ending my talks, and my social media posts, with the chant: Am Yisrael? (audience) Chai. I remember how friends and colleagues thought it was cute, reminiscent of a time when they too may have sung the song as kids, they’d chuckle. That’s what I was known for, I was the guy who people knew would scream out AM YISRAEL CHAI wherever and whenever possible. Am Yisrael Chai is not a slogan, it is a way of life.

    The earliest use of the slogan appeared as early as 1895 in a Zionist songbook

    Fast-forward to post October 7, 2023, Am Yisrael Chai has once again re-emerged as the rallying cry for the global people of Israel. My wife jokes that I should’ve copywritten the slogan back then, not that I think that would’ve been possible, but boy I would’ve been a millionaire by now! The reality is that we stand at an intersection of historic proportions, a point of reference requiring us to rise to the challenges confronting our people, once again elevating the rallying cry: Am Yisrael Chai!

    I know, I see it all over social media, and I hear it all the time, you do too, and I love it.

    Am Yisrael Chai is not a slogan, it is a way of life.

    The earliest use of the slogan appeared as early as 1895 in a Zionist songbook, and again at the Second World Jewish Conference in 1933, summoned to fight Hitler's new Nazi regime through economic boycott. Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise ended the final address by declaring to the crowd: "We are prepared to defend ourselves against the will of Hitler Germany to destroy. We must defend ourselves because we are a people which lives and wishes to live. My last word that I wish to speak to you is this – our people lives — Am Yisrael Chai!"

    And again, on April 20, 1945, five days after the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp was liberated, British Army chaplain Rabbi Leslie Hardman led a Friday evening Shabbat service for a few hundred survivors at the camp. Knowing the service was being recorded by Patrick Gordon Walker of the BBC radio service, a Jewish army chaplain proclaimed "Am Yisrael Chai!, the children of Israel still liveth" after the group sang the anthem Hatikvah at the conclusion of the service.

    The slogan reemerged in 1965, when Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach was asked to compose a song ahead of a planned Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry (SSSJ) rally in front of the Soviet Mission to the United Nations in New York on April 4, 1965. While in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia, Carlebach wrote and first performed "Am Yisrael Chai" before a group of youth in Prague.

    At each of these historic instances the slogan Am Yisrael Chai served as a living reference and driving force inspiring Am Yisrael at its most challenging times – The People of Israel LIVE!

    Am Yisrael Chai is not a slogan, it is a way of life.

    Fast-forward to today, we know that Am Yisrael Chai isn’t merely a slogan, rather Am Yisrael Chai is a way of life with a purpose that is projected forward from generations before our time to future generations yet to be born, driving our active participation in reclaiming, retelling, and realizing our story. Just as in the examples shared above, so too today, the slogan serves our current global Jewish anchor of hope and forward moving existence.

    Am Yisrael Chai is not a slogan, it is a way of life.

    Our ancestors who outlived exile and perpetuated Jewish life for 2000 years in exile

    The question is how do we perpetuate and live this value? By doing something about it. By being an active participant and not a bystander. By getting involved in every which way possible, by educating yourself, educating your children, and sending your kids to Jewish youth group and sleepaway camps, and by educating your community. It means getting involved in your local synagogue/temple, in a local communal organization, and getting involved with a cause that directly impacts Jewish Peoplehood and Israel, and it means role modeling for your children and others.

    Am Yisrael Chai is not a slogan, it is a way of life.

    What kind of ancestors will we be to our future generations?

    My hope is that we will be just as amazing as those who came before us. Our ancestors who outlived exile and perpetuated Jewish life for 2000 years in exile, ancestors who witnessed the rise and fall of empires, ancestors who maintained their Jewish way of life—in hiding if needed, ancestors who survived the worst that humanity has to offer during the Holocaust, ancestors who came out from the ashes of the Holocaust to make the dream of the modern nation state of Israel, a reality.

    And now it is our turn, Generation Zion, to choose life!

    In the future, this period of history will be learned about, talked about, and will be celebrated. Who knows? It may become a holiday (think Hannukah or Purim) where we read a megillah, pray and sing, make kiddish, eat a meal, maybe candy, and celebrate that the People of Israel live, all because you, we, did something about it.

    And remember: Am Yisrael Chai is not a slogan, it is a way of life.

    Rabbi Leor Sinai is Principal of Sinai Strategies, a consulting agency focused on advancing Global Jewish – Israel relations, Education, Leadership Development, and Organizational Advancement. Sinai also serves as a motivational speaker, sits on the Jewish Agency for Israel’s Board of Governors as Chair of the Youth Aliyah & Absorption Committee, and serves on the board of Atchalta—a non-partisan think tank advancing social cohesion and national resilience in Israel. Originally from New York, Sinai made Aliyah with his family in 2011.

    Sentinel Digest |
    Our stories this week

    Dec 26, 2024 05:30 pm  .::. 
    Sweeping up the homeless doesn't actually solve homelessness


    Dec 26, 2024 05:12 pm  .::. 
    Viewpoint |Bring back normalization with Cuba; the benefits will be well worth it


    Dec 26, 2024 04:41 pm  .::. 
    Viewpoint |Think you are exempt, you're not - If they can take my rights, Republicans will take yours, too


    Dec 26, 2024 03:11 pm  .::. 
    3 Spartans deliver double-digits in 14-point win over Bago at State Farm basketball tournament


    Dec 26, 2024 02:13 pm  .::. 
    SJO girls fall in opener at State Farm Holiday Classic, Erickson leads scoring effort



    Sweeping up the homeless doesn't actually solve homelessness


    Instead, governments should prioritize safe, affordable, dignified, and permanent housing for all.

    homeless camp

    Image: Pete Linforth/Pixabay

    by Farrah Hassen
          OtherWords


    This summer, the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass ruling made it much easier for local governments to criminalize homelessness. Since then, cities and states across the country have stepped up their harassment of people for the “crime” of not having a place to live.

    Penalizing homelessness has increasingly taken the form of crackdowns on encampments — also known as “sweeps,” which have received bipartisan support. California Governor Gavin Newsom has ordered state agencies to ramp up encampment sweeps, while President-elect Donald Trump has also pledged to ban encampments and move people to “tent cities” far from public view.

    Evidence shows that these sweeps are harmful and unproductive — and not to mention dehumanizing.

    Housing justice advocates caution that sweeps disrupt peoples’ lives by severing their ties to case workers, medical care, and other vital services. Many unhoused people also have their personal documents and other critical belongings seized or tossed, which makes it even harder to find housing and work.

    According to a ProPublica investigation, authorities in multiple cities have confiscated basic survival items like tents and blankets, as well as medical supplies like CPAP machines and insulin. Other people lost items like phones and tools that impacted their ability to work.

    Teresa Stratton from Portland told ProPublica that her husband’s ashes were even taken in a sweep. “I wonder where he is,” she said. “I hope he’s not in the dump.”

    Over the summer, the city of Sacramento, California forcefully evicted 48 residents — mostly women over 55 with disabilities — from a self-governed encampment known as Camp Resolution. The camp was located at a vacant lot and had been authorized by the city, which also owned the trailers where residents lived.

    Sweeps, like punitive fines and arrests, don’t address the root of the problem — they just trap people in cycles of poverty and homelessness.

    One of the residents who’d been at the hospital during the sweep was assured that her belongings would be kept safe. However, she told me she lost everything she’d worked so hard to acquire, including her car.

    The loss of her home and community of two years, along with her possessions, was already traumatizing. But now, like most of the camp residents, she was forced back onto the streets — even though the city had promised not to sweep the lot until every resident had been placed in permanent housing.

    Aside from being inhumane, the seizure of personal belongings raises serious constitutional questions — especially since sweeps often take place with little to no warning and authorities often fail to properly store belongings. Six unhoused New Yorkers recently sued the city on Fourth Amendment grounds, citing these practices.

    Sweeps, like punitive fines and arrests, don’t address the root of the problem — they just trap people in cycles of poverty and homelessness. Encampments can pose challenges to local communities, but their prevalence stems from our nation’s failure to ensure the fundamental human right to housing.

    People experiencing homelessness are often derided as an “eyesore” and blamed for their plight. However, government policies have allowed housing, a basic necessity for survival, to become commodified and controlled by corporations and billionaire investors for profit.

    Officials justify sweeps for safety and sanitation reasons, but in the end they harm and displace people who have nowhere else to go.

    Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage has remained stagnant at $7.25 since 2009 and rent is now unaffordable for half of all tenants. Alongside eroding social safety nets, these policies have resulted in a housing affordability crisis that’s left at least 653,000 people without housing nationwide.

    While shelters can help some people move indoors temporarily, they aren’t a real housing solution, either.

    Human rights groups report that shelters often don’t meet adequate standards of housing or accommodate people with disabilities. Many treat people like they’re incarcerated by imposing curfews and other restrictions, such as not allowing pets. Safety and privacy at shelters are also growing concerns.

    Officials justify sweeps for safety and sanitation reasons, but in the end they harm and displace people who have nowhere else to go. Instead, governments should prioritize safe, affordable, dignified, and permanent housing for all, coupled with supportive services.

    Anything else is sweeping the problem under the rug.


    About the author:
    Farrah Hassen, J.D., is a writer, policy analyst, and adjunct professor in the Department of Political Science at Cal Poly Pomona. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.




    Commentary |
    Many online conspiracy-spreaders don't believe the crazy lies they spew


    H. Colleen Sinclair, Louisiana State University


    There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

    They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.

    There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you.


    Chaos conspiracists, aka trolls, a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of their personal beliefs.

    Photo:Rafael Silva/PEXELS

    Coaxing conspiracists – the extremists

    In our chapter of a new book on extremism and conspiracies, my colleagues and I discuss evidence that certain extremist groups intentionally use conspiracy theories to entice adherents. They are looking for a so-called “gateway conspiracy” that will lure someone into talking to them, and then be vulnerable to radicalization. They try out multiple conspiracies to see what sticks.


    I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.

    Research shows that people with positive feelings for extremist groups are significantly more likely to knowingly share false content online. For instance, the disinformation-monitoring company Blackbird.AI tracked over 119 million COVID-19 conspiracy posts from May 2020, when activists were protesting pandemic restrictions and lockdowns in the United States. Of these, over 32 million tweets were identified as high on their manipulation index. Those posted by various extremist groups were particularly likely to carry markers of insincerity. For instance, one group, the Boogaloo Bois, generated over 610,000 tweets, of which 58% were intent on incitement and radicalization.

    You can also just take the word of the extremists themselves. When the Boogaloo Bois militia group showed up at the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, for example, members stated they didn’t actually endorse the stolen election conspiracy, but were there to “mess with the federal government.” Aron McKillips, a Boogaloo member arrested in 2022 as part of an FBI sting, is another example of an opportunistic conspiracist. In his own words: “I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.”

    Combative conspiracists – the disinformants

    Governments love conspiracy theories. The classic example of this is the 1903 document known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in which Russia constructed an enduring myth about Jewish plans for world domination. More recently, China used artificial intelligence to construct a fake conspiracy theory about the August 2023 Maui wildfire.

    Often the behavior of the conspiracists gives them away. Years later, Russia eventually confessed to lying about AIDS in the 1980s. But even before admitting to the campaign, its agents had forged documents to support the conspiracy. Forgeries aren’t created by accident. They knew they were lying.

    As for other conspiracies it hawks, Russia is famous for taking both sides in any contentious issue, spreading lies online to foment conflict and polarization. People who actually believe in a conspiracy tend to stick to a side. Meanwhile, Russians knowingly deploy what one analyst has called a “fire hose of falsehoods.”

    Likewise, while Chinese officials were spreading conspiracies about American roots of the coronavirus in 2020, China’s National Health Commission was circulating internal reports tracing the source to a pangolin.

    Chaos conspiracists – the trolls

    In general, research has found that individuals with what scholars call a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of belief. These are the everyday trolls who share false content for a variety of reasons, none of which are benevolent. Dark personalities and dark motives are prevalent.

    For instance, in the wake of the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a false accusation arose online about the identity of the shooter and his motivations. The person who first posted this claim knew he was making up a name and stealing a photo. The intent was apparently to harass the Italian sports blogger whose photo was stolen. This fake conspiracy was seen over 300,000 times on the social platform X and picked up by multiple other conspiracists eager to fill the information gap about the assassination attempt.

    Commercial conspiracists – the profiteers

    Often when I encounter a conspiracy theory I ask: “What does the sharer have to gain? Are they telling me this because they have an evidence-backed concern, or are they trying to sell me something?”

    When researchers tracked down the 12 people primarily responsible for the vast majority of anti-vaccine conspiracies online, most of them had a financial investment in perpetuating these misleading narratives.

    Some people who fall into this category might truly believe their conspiracy, but their first priority is finding a way to make money from it. For instance, conspiracist Alex Jones bragged that his fans would “buy anything.” Fox News and its on-air personality Tucker Carlson publicized lies about voter fraud in the 2020 election to keep viewers engaged, while behind-the-scenes communications revealed they did not endorse what they espoused.

    Profit doesn’t just mean money. People can also profit from spreading conspiracies if it garners them influence or followers, or protects their reputation. Even social media companies are reluctant to combat conspiracies because they know they attract more clicks.


    Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation.

    Common conspiracists – the attention-getters

    You don’t have to be a profiteer to like some attention. Plenty of regular people share content where they doubt the veracity, or know it is false.

    These posts are common: Friends, family and acquaintances share the latest conspiracy theory with “could this be true?” queries or “seems close enough to the truth” taglines. Their accompanying comments show that sharers are, at minimum, unsure about the truthfulness of the content, but they share nonetheless. Many share without even reading past a headline. Still others, approximately 7% to 20% of social media users, share despite knowing the content is false. Why?

    Some claim to be sharing to inform people “just in case” it is true. But this sort of “sound the alarm” reason actually isn’t that common.

    Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation. They want the likes and shares. They want to “stir the pot.” Or they just like the message and want to signal to others that they share a common belief system.

    For frequent sharers, it just becomes a habit.

    The dangers of spreading lies

    Over time, the opportunists may end up convincing themselves. After all, they will eventually have to come to terms with why they are engaging in unethical and deceptive, if not destructive, behavior. They may have a rationale for why lying is good. Or they may convince themselves that they aren’t lying by claiming they thought the conspiracy was true all along.

    It’s important to be cautious and not believe everything you read. These opportunists don’t even believe everything they write – and share. But they want you to. So be aware that the next time you share an unfounded conspiracy theory, online or offline, you could be helping an opportunist. They don’t buy it, so neither should you. Be aware before you share. Don’t be what these opportunists derogatorily refer to as “a useful idiot.”


    About the author:
    The Conversation H. Colleen Sinclair is a Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology at Louisiana State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Viewpoint |
    Kamala Harris’ and Donald Trump’s records on abortion policy couldn’t be more different – here’s what actions they both have taken while in office

    Rachel Rebouché, Temple University


    Abortion is a critical, if not the most important, issue for many voters – especially women, according to polls – ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November.


    Harris and Trump have starkly different track records on abortion.

    Since Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee in August 2024, she has been vocal about her support for abortion rights. Specifically, she supports Congress passing a federal law that would protect abortion rights in the wake of the Supreme Court in 2022 overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which recognized a constitutional right to abortion.

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, meanwhile, has boasted about nominating three Supreme Court justices who were among the court majority that voted in 2022 to abandon a constitutional right to abortion. However, in September 2024, Trump said he would not sign a federal abortion ban, reversing course from his previous statements. He also did not answer a question during the September presidential debate about whether he would veto legislation that bans abortion.

    Harris and Trump have starkly different track records on abortion. As an academic, my scholarship focuses on reproductive health law, health care law and family law. In this piece, and in anticipation of the election, I briefly consider the broad strokes of each candidate’s past positions on and actions regarding abortion.

    Harris’ abortion record

    As California’s attorney general, Harris co-sponsored the Reproductive FACT Act, which, among other requirements, mandated that crisis pregnancy centers inform patients that they are not licensed medical facilities and that abortion services are available elsewhere. These centers are nonprofit organizations that counsel pregnant people against abortion, sometimes using deceptive tactics.

    Anti-abortion groups sued to block the law once it went into effect. And, in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law on First Amendment grounds.


    As a U.S. senator, Harris opposed anti-abortion bills that would have conferred personhood rights on fetuses.

    In 2017, Harris investigated the tactics of undercover videographers at Planned Parenthood clinics who, through deception and fraud, sought to entrap clinicians into making controversial, though legal, statements, and who possibly contravened state law on secret recordings.

    As a U.S. senator, Harris opposed anti-abortion bills that would have conferred personhood rights on fetuses. None of them ultimately passed.

    Conversely, Harris championed various bills that would have protected and advanced reproductive rights. In 2019, for example, Harris was a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have enacted a federal statutory right to abortion. It also did not pass.

    Finally, during Harris’ tenure as vice president, the Biden administration has used its executive power to ease barriers to abortion access, primarily through federal agency actions. The Food and Drug Administration, for example, removed a rule in 2021 that prohibited mailing medication abortion.

    The Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance affirming that federal law requires emergency rooms to perform an abortion when it is medically necessary to stabilize a patient needing urgent care.

    The Biden-Harris administration also supported federal legislation that includes accommodations for abortion. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, enacted in 2023, requires employers to provide time off for a worker’s miscarriage, stillbirth or abortion.


    Trump began his presidency in 2016 by promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who wouldoverturn Roe v. Wade.

    Although the Biden-Harris administration’s abortion policy is not necessarily based on just the vice president, Harris, since Roe’s reversal, has been at the helm of the administration’s “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour, speaking nationally in support of a right to abortion. Harris has also stressed the damage done in 14 states, in particular, where abortion is banned throughout pregnancy or after six weeks of gestation.

    Trump’s abortion record

    During Trump’s tenure as president, he supported various changes – in the form of judicial appointments, federal funding and agency actions, some led by anti-abortion federal employees – in the service of making it harder for people to gain access to abortion care.

    Trump began his presidency in 2016 by promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He nominated three justices – Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch – who joined the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, reversing Roe in June 2022.

    The Senate confirmed 226 judges whom Trump nominated to the lower levels of federal courts. Trump’s nominations followed a campaign pledge in 2016 that he “would appoint pro-life judges.” Some were on record as being against abortion, and some believed that embryos should be treated like children.

    Subscribe

    From the start, Trump’s administration prioritized defunding Planned Parenthood clinics, which offer abortion care and receive federal funding under the federal Title X program for other family planning services. Trump signed a bill in 2017 to allow states to strip funding from Planned Parenthood clinics and other organizations that offer abortion, even though abortion care was not supported by the Title X funding.

    The Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to replace the Affordable Care Act and undermine its coverage for contraceptives as well as its neutral stance on insurance coverage for abortion. Trump supported bills such as the never-passed American Health Care Act to limit abortion coverage in private health insurance plans.

    Trump also appointed several people with anti-abortion positions to his administration, including Charmaine Yoest, the former CEO for the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, who served as a top communications official at the Department of Health and Human Services.

    The Trump administration advanced numerous other anti-abortion policies. For instance, the Department of Human and Health Services’ 2017 strategic plan defined life as beginning at conception – a decision that supported funding for crisis pregnancy centers and abstinence-only education programs.

    Finally, the Trump administration adopted an anti-abortion approach when it came to foreign policy. Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive U.S. funding from performing abortions or referring patients for abortion care elsewhere. Under the Mexico City Policy, Trump in 2017 removed US$8.8 billion in U.S. foreign aid for overseas programs that provide or refer for abortions.

    In 2017, Trump also suspended U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund, an agency focused on family planning for low-income people around the world, among other issues, which does “not promote abortion” but “supports the right of all women to get post-abortion care.” Biden restored funding to the U.N. agency in 2021.

    In the coming weeks, both candidates will have a lot to say about abortion, possibly refining or changing their stances on aspects of abortion law. In assessing what both candidates have to say about how their administration will approach abortion, voters might consider what we know about their past actions.


    The Conversation About the author:
    Rachel Rebouché is a Professor of Law at Temple University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


    More Sentinel Stories



    Photo Galleries


    January 4, 2025
    42 Photos
    December 14, 2024
    39 Photos
    December 7, 2024
    27 Photos