September, 17 2015, 12:15pm EDT
Sanders, House Leaders Introduce Bill to Ban Private Prisons
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.) today introduced bills to ban private prisons, reinstate the federal parole system and eliminate quotas for the number of immigrants held in detention.
VERMONT
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.) today introduced bills to ban private prisons, reinstate the federal parole system and eliminate quotas for the number of immigrants held in detention.
"We cannot fix our criminal justice system if corporations are allowed to profit from mass incarceration," Sanders said. "Keeping human beings in jail for long periods of time must no longer be an acceptable business model in America. We have got to end the private prison racket in America. Our focus should be on treating people with dignity and ensuring they have the resources they need to get back on their feet when they get out."
Of the nearly 1.6 million people in federal and state prisons in 2013, 8.4 percent were in private prisons. That includes over 41,159 federal prisoners in private facilities and 91,885 state prisoners in private facilities. The U.S. Marshal Service held 20 percent of its detainees in private facilities and Immigration and Customs Enforcement held 62 percent of its detainees in private facilities in 2014. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is mandated to detain an average of 34,000 individuals every day.
"Our corrections system exists to uphold justice - not to house innocent refugees or feed the greed of corporate interests," Grijalva said. "By treating prisoners and detainees as a means to a profit margin, we're incentivizing jailors to lobby for ever more inmates, and for inmates to be denied even the basic staples they're entitled to. The result is a corrections system collapsing under its own weight as the prison industry gets rich and countless innocent men, women and children are ensnared in their trap."
"In a society dedicated to liberty and justice, for-profit prisons offend our bedrock principles. Depriving someone of their freedom is the most severe punishment the federal government can levy - the sole incentive must be justice, never profit," Ellison said. "Private prison corporations spend millions of dollars lobbying government for harsher sentencing laws and immigration policy that serves their bottom line, while taxpayers foot the $80 billion dollar a year bill to incarcerate 2.3 million people. Incarceration should be about rehabilitation, not profit. Now, more than ever, we need to restore confidence in our criminal justice system. Step one is taking the profit out of the punishment."
"I have repeatedly expressed my concern over the exorbitant phone call rates from and to correctional facilities that are unjust and unreasonable," Rush said. "Many families have to pay an average of 300 to 400 dollars a month just to stay in touch with an incarcerated family member. Exorbitant phone rates harm the families and children of the incarcerated where studies have shown that consistent communication with loved-ones reduce recidivism. The ability to stay in touch with a family is a fundamental need, and one's humanity does not perish when they enter the prison system."
The Justice Is Not for Sale Act bars the federal government from contracting with private companies starting two years after the bill is passed. It reinstates the federal parole system, which was abolished in 1984 and increases the oversight over companies that provide banking and telephone services for inmates.
The legislation also ends the requirement that Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintain a level of 34,000 detention beds.
"The so-called 'bed quota' is costly and harmful," Sanders said. "Allowing the agency to utilize alternatives to detention would save taxpayers over $5 million per day, or around $1.4 billion per year."
The bill is supported by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, California Reinvestment Coalition, Campaign for America's Future, Center for Community, Change Action, Consumer Action, Credo, Demand Progress, Democracy for America, Detention Watch Network, Dream Action Coalition, Grassroots Leadership, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Immigration Equality Action Fund , In the Public Interest, Justice Strategies, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, League of United Latin American Citizens, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Religious Campaign Against Torture, NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, PICO National Network Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services.
LATEST NEWS
US- and Israel-Backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Must Be Shut Down, Say 165+ Charities
Distribution points run by the group, warns the NGO coalition, "have become sites of repeated massacres in blatant disregard for international humanitarian law."
Jul 01, 2025
More than 165 nongovernmental organizations on Tuesday issued a joint call to shut down the "deadly Israeli distribution scheme" for humanitarian assistance in the Gaza Strip, return to relief efforts coordinated by the United Nations, and end Israel's blockade on aid and commercial supplies into the destroyed Palestinian enclave.
The U.S.- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) began operations in late May, over widespread objections. As the joint statement explains, "The 400 aid distribution points operating during the temporary cease-fire across Gaza have now been replaced by just four military-controlled distribution sites, forcing 2 million people into overcrowded, militarized zones where they face daily gunfire and mass casualties while trying to access food and are denied other lifesaving supplies."
"Starved and weakened civilians are being forced to trek for hours through dangerous terrain and active conflict zones, only to face a violent, chaotic race to reach fenced, militarized distribution sites."
"The weeks following the launch of the Israeli distribution scheme have been some of the deadliest and most violent since October 2023," the statement notes. The Gaza Health Ministry says Israel's nearly 21-month assault has killed at least 56,647 Palestinians—and, as of Sunday, at least 583 of those deaths occurred while people sought food at GHF sites.
Another 4,186 Palestinians have been injured at the aid sites, according to the ministry. Overall, at least 134,105 have been wounded by the Israel Defense Forces' campaign since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack. Some IDF troops toldHaaretz last week that commanders ordered them to shoot and shell aid-seeking Palestinians, even when they posed no threat.
"For 20 months, more than 2 million people have been subjected to relentless bombardment, the weaponization of food, water, and other aid, repeated forced displacement, and systematic dehumanization—all under the watch of the international community," the NGOs detailed. "The Sphere Association, which sets minimum standards for quality humanitarian aid, has warned that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's approach does not adhere to core humanitarian standards and principles."
"Under the Israeli government's new scheme, starved and weakened civilians are being forced to trek for hours through dangerous terrain and active conflict zones, only to face a violent, chaotic race to reach fenced, militarized distribution sites with a single entry point," the groups wrote. "There, thousands are released into chaotic enclosures to fight for limited food supplies."
"These areas have become sites of repeated massacres in blatant disregard for international humanitarian law," the coalition continued. "Orphaned children and caregivers are among the dead, with children harmed in over half of the attacks on civilians at these sites. With Gaza's healthcare system in ruins, many of those shot are left to bleed out alone, beyond the reach of ambulances and denied lifesaving medical care."
Today, over 130 NGOs have called for the restoration of unified, UN-led aid coordination and distribution in #Gaza based on international humanitarian law, inclusive of UNRWA.👉 www.oxfam.org/en/press-rel...@oxfaminternational.bsky.social @nrc-global.bsky.social @savechildrenintl.bsky.social
[image or embed]
— UNRWA (@unrwa.org) July 1, 2025 at 7:53 AM
The NGOs asserted that "the humanitarian system is being deliberately and systematically dismantled by the government of Israel's blockade and restrictions, a blockade now being used to justify shutting down nearly all other aid operations in favor of a deadly, military-controlled alternative that neither protects civilians nor meets basic needs."
The organizations also stressed that "experienced humanitarian actors remain ready to deliver lifesaving assistance at scale."
In addition to calling on other countries to "uphold their obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law," and to "reject the false choice between deadly, military-controlled food distributions and total denial of aid," the groups reiterated their demands for "an immediate and sustained cease-fire, the release of all hostages and arbitrarily detained prisoners, full humanitarian access at scale, and an end to the pervasive impunity that enables these atrocities and denies Palestinians their basic dignity."
Signatories include ActionAid, American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Greenpeace, Islamic Relief Worldwide, Jewish Network for Palestine, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), Norwegian Refugee Council, Oxfam International, PAX, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, Save the Children, War Child Alliance, and War on Want.
Their statement follows a similar one released last week by a coalition of 15 leading human rights and legal organizations, which urged all parties involved in GHF, including countries, corporations, donors and individuals, "to immediately suspend any action or support that facilitates the forcible displacement of civilians, contributes to starvation or other grave breaches of international law, or undermines the core principles of international humanitarian law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Anti-Poverty Campaigners Cheer Spain-Brazil-South Africa Plan to Tax the Grotesquely Rich
"People are fed up with billionaires' greed eroding the environment and communities we depend on," said one supporter of the new initiative. "It's time for world leaders to listen and act."
Jul 01, 2025
A new plan backed by the governments of Spain, Brazil, and South Africa to tax the fortunes of the uber-rich drew hearty cheers from anti-poverty campaigners, environmental activists, and unions when it was announced on Tuesday.
As described in an announcement by the Spanish government, the initiative aims to create coordination between governments on the taxation of high-net-worth individuals to ensure they are not shuffling money abroad to avoid proper taxation.
"The proposal aims to incentivize and guide different countries to join the initiative and address policy, administrative, and data deficiencies, ensuring that high-net-worth individuals are taxed more efficiently in line with their wealth," the Spanish government explained. "To achieve this, it is necessary to foster international cooperation in multilateral forums to promote and facilitate the implementation of evidence-based reforms and ongoing experiences regarding the taxation of large fortunes in different countries."
The plan—crafted by the governments of Spain and Brazil and presented at the United Nations' Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development being held in the Spanish city of Seville—was quickly praised by an assortment of international nonprofit organizations as an essential tool for tackling global wealth inequality.
Kate Blagojevic, associate director for Europe campaigns for environmental the advocacy group 350.org, described it as "a bold move by Spain and Brazil" that she said could provide funding for clean energy investments around the world, including in countries that lack the resources to make such investments.
"We want more countries to join this coalition so that billionaires and multi-millionaires help to foot the bill for the climate damage they have caused and decrease the huge gap between the rich and the poorest," she said, while also calling for the United Kingdom, France, and Germany to sign on.
Susana Ruiz, the tax justice policy lead at the anti-poverty organization Oxfam, emphasized that international coordination on taxation of high-worth individuals was a serious proposal to address a crisis in global democracy, which she said was being undermined by the corrupting influence of vast sums of money being held by a tiny number of people.
"This extreme inequality is being driven by a financial system that puts the interests of a wealthy few above everyone else," she said. "This concentration of wealth is blocking progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals and keeping over three billion people living in poverty: over half of poor countries are spending more on debt repayments than on healthcare or education."
Fred Njehu, the global political lead for Greenpeace’s Fair Share campaign, deemed the tax plan essential at a time when nations are behind their renewable energy goals and when wealthy elites such as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos can go all-out for a lavish three-day wedding in Venice.
"Financing is urgently needed for climate action and public services, not for polluting space travel and luxury weddings," he said. "This new coalition of governments working to tax the super-rich adds to the growing global momentum to make the world’s wealthiest pay their fair share. People are fed up with billionaires' greed eroding the environment and communities we depend on. It's time for world leaders to listen and act."
And Leo Hyde, the campaigns and media coordinator at the Public Services International union, praised the plan and said that was the result of years' worth of advocacy by unions and other organizations.
"The initiative aims to ensure a progressive and efficient global tax system with the aim of reducing social inequality," he said. "This builds directly on years of union-led tax justice campaigning that has already yielded significant victories, including the OECD global minimum corporate tax, Australia's public country-by-country reporting initiatives, and the ongoing UN tax treaty negotiations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'All Are Now Vulnerable': Legal Scholars Alarmed as DOJ Begins Push to Denaturalize Citizens
"Anyone could be prioritized," a spokesperson for the ACLU told Common Dreams. "It's really chilling."
Jul 01, 2025
As the Trump administration has begun the push to strip citizenship from foreign-born Americans, legal scholars and advocates are calling it a dangerous step toward using citizenship as a political weapon.
On June 11, the U.S. Department of Justice issued an internal memo written by Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate calling on DOJ attorneys to pursue "civil denaturalization" of foreign-born U.S. citizens.
"The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence," the memo said, adding that it should be among the division's top five priorities.
It suggested a wide variety of citizens who could be targeted for denaturalization. This includes perpetrators of violent offenses like "torture, war crimes, or other human rights violations." But it also targets much broader groups of people such as those "who pose a potential danger to national security" or those who "acquired naturalization through government corruption, fraud, or material misrepresentations."
It also calls for "any other cases referred to the Civil Division that the division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue."
Naureen Shah, director of government affairs for the ACLU's Equality Division, told Common Dreams that "it's another devastating attack by the Trump administration on people who they want to cast as not belonging here."
The memo's vague language has Shah and other legal scholars warning that denaturalization could become a tool to deport political opponents, an effort that would be harder for courts to stop following Friday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which hamstrung the ability of lower courts to stop illegal actions by the Trump administration using injunctions.
Joyce Vance, a former United States Attorney, who is now a law professor and a legal analyst for MSNBC and NBC, warned Tuesday about the possible implications on her blog Civil Discourse:
"It could be exercising First Amendment rights or encouraging diversity in hiring, now recast as fraud against the United States. Troublesome journalists who are naturalized citizens? Students? University professors? Infectious disease doctors who try to reveal the truth about epidemics? Lawyers?" Vance wrote. "All are now vulnerable to the vagaries of an administration that has shown a preference for deporting people without due process and dealing with questions that come up after the fact and with a dismissive tone."
"Anyone could be prioritized," Shah said. "It's really chilling."
Cassandra Robertson, a law professor at Case Western University, told NPR that it was "especially concerning" that the administration would plan to pursue denaturalization through civil court.
"Civil denaturalization cases provide no right to an attorney, meaning defendants without resources often face the government without representation," she wrote in a 2019 study on the history of denaturalization along with her colleague Irina Manta. "There are no jury trials, with judges making citizenship determinations alone. The burden of proof is 'clear and convincing evidence' rather than the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Additionally, there is no statute of limitations, allowing the government to build cases on decades-old evidence that may be incomplete or unreliable."
Robertson said Trump's approach mirrors that undertaken during the McCarthy era, when those deemed "un-American" were stripped of citizenship due to their political views.
"At the height of denaturalization, there were about 22,000 cases a year of denaturalization filed, and this was on a smaller population. It was huge," she said.
The Supreme Court stepped in to reel back denaturalization in 1967, determining that, in Robertson's words, it was "inconsistent with the American form of democracy, because it creates two levels of citizenship." After that, the number of denaturalization cases plummeted to the single digits each year. The Trump administration seems to be hoping to reverse that trend.
Republican politicians have not been shy about calling for their political opponents to be stripped of citizenship. Last week, following Zohran Mamdani's shocking victory in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) called for the Ugandan-born state assemblyman to be stripped of his U.S. citizenship and "deported," referring to him as an "antisemitic, socialist, communist."
Ogles accused Mamdani of failing to disclose his political "affiliations or sympathies" during the process that led him to become a citizen in 2018. He singled out Mamdani's support for the Holy Land Foundation, whose leaders were convicted in a widely criticized "terrorism financing" case in 2008. Notably, the leaders of the group were never accused of directly funding terrorist groups or terrorist acts.
On Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked about Ogles' call to deport Mamdani, and she did not shoot down the idea.
"I have not seen those claims, but surely if they are true, it's something that should be investigated," Leavitt said.
It was not the first time Republicans have called to deport leaders in the other party explicitly for their political views.
In June, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier called for the Trump administration to "deport and denaturalize" Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who came to the U.S. as a refugee from Somalia, after she criticized President Donald Trump's deployment of the military to quash protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Los Angeles.
The Trump administration has already targeted lawful immigrants with deportation purely for their political views. In March, the administration abducted and attempted to deport pro-Palestine student activist Mahmoud Khalil, explicitly because he was a "threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States," similar language to what the DOJ now says is justification for denaturalization. The administration has also attempted to deport others, like Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk, for as little as co-writing an op-ed calling on her university to divest from Israel.
"The way the memo is written, there is no guarantee DOJ will pursue cases against violent criminals," Vance said. "They could just do easy cases to ratchet up numbers, like we're seeing with deportation. Or they could target people who, they view as troublemakers."
There are more than 25 million people in the United States who are naturalized citizens.
"They should not have to live in fear that they'll lose their rights," Shah said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular