That's devastating. I knew it was bad and have called my two spineless senators multiple times this week to no avail-- they're 2 of the vile Dems enabling this vicious legislation-- but now I'm vibrating with rage and anguish. We've normalized harming the most vulnerable among us at a time when we should be standing together to heal the world that's literally burning up.
Corruption over rights, who needs the amendments, when you have "a small group of private prison officials, surveillance companies, and lots of government bureaucrats are about to make billions of dollars and create permanent new jobs and bureaucracies that will be impossible later to dismantle"
Democrats are as bad as Republicans in most ways and even worse in some (for example, militarism), so no evil they do surprises me at this point. Both parties are completely owned by corporate America and AIPAC.
Bob’s comment is both wildly conspiratorial and deeply problematic, as Alex’s article makes no reference to AIPAC, Israel, or Jewish people. By introducing AIPAC into a critique about political corruption, it unnecessarily plays into antisemitic tropes that suggest disproportionate or manipulative Jewish influence over politics. This narrative is not only baseless but also harmful, as it perpetuates stereotypes rooted in prejudice. If the concern is about lobbying or corporate influence, the critique should remain focused on that issue rather than invoking unrelated and inflammatory rhetoric. Let’s keep the discussion rooted in the actual content of the article.
I'm Jewish, Carl. I'm only stating the truth: that AIPAC has an outsized influence on US politics, and both parties are to a significant extent afraid of and controlled by it. AIPAC does not equal Jews. You are equating Jews with Zionism and Zionist organizations, which is itself antisemitic and prejudiced.
1. Claim: The Retail Theft Panic Was a Fabrication
• Analysis: The article states that the retail theft crisis was entirely fabricated, citing studies debunking it. However, while there is evidence that some aspects of the retail theft panic were exaggerated (e.g., inflated loss numbers or viral videos overemphasizing certain incidents), it is incorrect to claim there was no increase in theft. Retailers like Walgreens, Target, and others have reported higher shrinkage in specific regions, though the scale and attribution (organized theft vs. other causes) remain debated.
• Conclusion: This claim oversimplifies the issue by labeling the retail theft problem as completely fabricated. It’s more accurate to say the problem was amplified and mischaracterized in some media narratives.
2. Claim: Pretrial Detention Increases Crime and Costs Society
• Analysis (continued): The article correctly states that research demonstrates the negative impacts of pretrial detention on individuals and communities, particularly for low-level offenses. However, it overgeneralizes by suggesting that pretrial detention always makes society less safe. In cases involving violent crimes or flight risks, detention may still serve a legitimate public safety interest. Furthermore, the Laken Riley Act focuses on immigration-related detention, which differs legally and procedurally from general pretrial detention. While the critiques of pretrial detention are valid, they may not fully apply to the context of immigration enforcement.
• Conclusion: The claim about pretrial detention has merit but oversimplifies the issue by not addressing exceptions where detention may be justified or necessary.
3. Claim: There Is an Overemphasis on Minor Property Crimes
• Analysis: The article criticizes the Laken Riley Act for focusing on detention for minor property crimes, such as shoplifting, over more serious crimes like murder. This claim is partly misleading, as the act is framed around preventing potential harm from individuals who commit crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully, not as an alternative to prosecuting violent crimes. The focus on theft-related offenses may reflect political priorities (e.g., addressing public perception of “retail theft waves”) rather than sound legal or policy reasoning.
• Conclusion: The emphasis on minor property crimes may be misplaced, but the claim that this comes at the expense of addressing violent crimes is not substantiated by the legislation itself.
4. Claim: The Laken Riley Act Is Driven by Xenophobia and Nativism
• Analysis: The article argues that the act stems from “xenophobic” and “nativist” rhetoric, suggesting it is designed to target immigrants unfairly rather than address legitimate public safety concerns. While it is true that immigration-related policies are often influenced by political narratives, the claim oversimplifies the motivations behind the act. Supporters argue it is intended to enhance public safety and ensure accountability, though these justifications may be rooted in debatable assumptions about immigrant criminality.
• Conclusion: The claim contains subjective bias and overgeneralizes the motivations of lawmakers and supporters. However, it raises valid concerns about the disproportionate focus on immigration-related offenses.
5. Claim: The Laken Riley Act Violates Constitutional Precedents
• Analysis: The article suggests the act is unconstitutional because it enforces blanket pretrial detention without individualized assessments, violating the fundamental right to liberty. U.S. courts have previously ruled that prolonged detention without due process (e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis) is unconstitutional, even in immigration cases. However, the act’s provisions may seek to exploit legal loopholes or exceptions that allow for detention in certain contexts, such as national security or public safety concerns.
• Conclusion: The argument about unconstitutionality has substantial legal basis, but the claim that it is definitively unconstitutional requires further judicial review.
6. Claim: The Act Benefits Private Prisons and Surveillance Companies
• Analysis: The assertion that private prison and surveillance companies will profit from the act aligns with broader critiques of the privatization of immigration detention. There is evidence that such companies lobby for tougher immigration enforcement policies. However, the extent to which they directly influenced the Laken Riley Act is not substantiated in the article.
• Conclusion: The claim is plausible but lacks direct evidence tying private corporations to the specific legislation.
Overall Summary of Misinformation or Disinformation
The article raises valid concerns about the Laken Riley Act, particularly regarding its focus on pretrial detention, minor property crimes, and the broader implications for immigrants. However, it contains:
1. Overgeneralizations (e.g., that the retail theft crisis was entirely fabricated).
2. Bias (e.g., framing motivations as purely xenophobic without considering other perspectives).
3. Speculative Claims (e.g., direct corporate influence on the act).
While the article serves as a passionate critique, it mixes valid evidence with speculative and overstated claims. For a clearer understanding, it’s essential to rely on primary sources like the text of the bill itself, legal analyses, and neutral reporting.
Alex has always been quite meticulous in his research and he has seen the results of private prison lobbying and xenophobic right wing legislation as a result oftentimes as an over reaction. You may find the need to poke holes in his assumptions but is this really the place to be doing that?
I understand and respect that Alex has put a lot of effort into his research and has strong opinions on these issues. However, discussions like these are important precisely because differing perspectives can help us refine our understanding and challenge assumptions, including our own. Examining the potential biases or broader implications of any argument isn’t about dismissing Alex’s views but about fostering a deeper, more nuanced conversation. This space should welcome constructive dialogue, and I think it’s entirely appropriate to engage in that here, as long as it’s done respectfully. We all deserve as true a rendition of information as possible. It is only then that we can engage in decision making and activism that is truly constructive.
The constitutional bedrock of the United States as a sovereign entity is that is is governed by those residents defined as citizens. A citizen member of the Club has defined rights and responsibilities. At the end of the Civil War there was a turbulent time when who was in and who was out led to loyalty oaths and the Klan. The federal government has always fixed the policy to regulate immigration on one hand and to fix or reform the definition of civil rights.
The Biden administration opted to fail to enforce the outstanding enforcement of immigration and so enticed and abetted the entry into the territory of the United States large numbers of non-citizens. For many who are now settled into civil life and leading a productive life they will have to be given a fair proceedure to formalize their admission to The Club. Those who do not conform though are certainly subject to detention and deportation.
The enforcement problem with this 'bad' lot is where to park them. Forcibly shoving them into say, Mexico is hardly feasible. Naturally, the penal industry racketeers are salivating at the expected profits of a new large crop of criminalized personnel.
Maybe dump them in the Ukraine army and pay the Russians a fee for their certain attrition in combat. Or, sent them into the UK on rubber boats where the governing fools there will hardly object.
This bill makes me shudder with vehement anger at the MAGA MAROONS who thought that using Lakin Riley's name against her families wishes and politicizing the trauma that they have endured was an acceptable way to spread their zeniphobia in the halls of Congress. They knew that they had to do this after Joe Biden would have a chance to veto it and Deadbeat Donnie is in office to go along with it. They disgust me. 😒
I understand your frustration, especially when it comes to sensitive issues like this one. However, framing the discussion with such a destructive tone doesn’t move us closer to solutions—it polarizes us further. If we want to address the harm caused by this bill or its process, we need to engage in dialogue that focuses on actionable steps, not just anger. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.’ Let’s honor the families impacted by focusing on solutions that promote understanding and justice, rather than escalating division.
Wow I didn't know it was this bad. Thanks for your ongoing work exposing copaganda.
That's devastating. I knew it was bad and have called my two spineless senators multiple times this week to no avail-- they're 2 of the vile Dems enabling this vicious legislation-- but now I'm vibrating with rage and anguish. We've normalized harming the most vulnerable among us at a time when we should be standing together to heal the world that's literally burning up.
Corruption over rights, who needs the amendments, when you have "a small group of private prison officials, surveillance companies, and lots of government bureaucrats are about to make billions of dollars and create permanent new jobs and bureaucracies that will be impossible later to dismantle"
Democrats are as bad as Republicans in most ways and even worse in some (for example, militarism), so no evil they do surprises me at this point. Both parties are completely owned by corporate America and AIPAC.
Bob’s comment is both wildly conspiratorial and deeply problematic, as Alex’s article makes no reference to AIPAC, Israel, or Jewish people. By introducing AIPAC into a critique about political corruption, it unnecessarily plays into antisemitic tropes that suggest disproportionate or manipulative Jewish influence over politics. This narrative is not only baseless but also harmful, as it perpetuates stereotypes rooted in prejudice. If the concern is about lobbying or corporate influence, the critique should remain focused on that issue rather than invoking unrelated and inflammatory rhetoric. Let’s keep the discussion rooted in the actual content of the article.
I'm Jewish, Carl. I'm only stating the truth: that AIPAC has an outsized influence on US politics, and both parties are to a significant extent afraid of and controlled by it. AIPAC does not equal Jews. You are equating Jews with Zionism and Zionist organizations, which is itself antisemitic and prejudiced.
Thanks, Alec. Will do my best to share this.
Key Claims in the Article and Their Validity
1. Claim: The Retail Theft Panic Was a Fabrication
• Analysis: The article states that the retail theft crisis was entirely fabricated, citing studies debunking it. However, while there is evidence that some aspects of the retail theft panic were exaggerated (e.g., inflated loss numbers or viral videos overemphasizing certain incidents), it is incorrect to claim there was no increase in theft. Retailers like Walgreens, Target, and others have reported higher shrinkage in specific regions, though the scale and attribution (organized theft vs. other causes) remain debated.
• Conclusion: This claim oversimplifies the issue by labeling the retail theft problem as completely fabricated. It’s more accurate to say the problem was amplified and mischaracterized in some media narratives.
2. Claim: Pretrial Detention Increases Crime and Costs Society
• Analysis (continued): The article correctly states that research demonstrates the negative impacts of pretrial detention on individuals and communities, particularly for low-level offenses. However, it overgeneralizes by suggesting that pretrial detention always makes society less safe. In cases involving violent crimes or flight risks, detention may still serve a legitimate public safety interest. Furthermore, the Laken Riley Act focuses on immigration-related detention, which differs legally and procedurally from general pretrial detention. While the critiques of pretrial detention are valid, they may not fully apply to the context of immigration enforcement.
• Conclusion: The claim about pretrial detention has merit but oversimplifies the issue by not addressing exceptions where detention may be justified or necessary.
3. Claim: There Is an Overemphasis on Minor Property Crimes
• Analysis: The article criticizes the Laken Riley Act for focusing on detention for minor property crimes, such as shoplifting, over more serious crimes like murder. This claim is partly misleading, as the act is framed around preventing potential harm from individuals who commit crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully, not as an alternative to prosecuting violent crimes. The focus on theft-related offenses may reflect political priorities (e.g., addressing public perception of “retail theft waves”) rather than sound legal or policy reasoning.
• Conclusion: The emphasis on minor property crimes may be misplaced, but the claim that this comes at the expense of addressing violent crimes is not substantiated by the legislation itself.
4. Claim: The Laken Riley Act Is Driven by Xenophobia and Nativism
• Analysis: The article argues that the act stems from “xenophobic” and “nativist” rhetoric, suggesting it is designed to target immigrants unfairly rather than address legitimate public safety concerns. While it is true that immigration-related policies are often influenced by political narratives, the claim oversimplifies the motivations behind the act. Supporters argue it is intended to enhance public safety and ensure accountability, though these justifications may be rooted in debatable assumptions about immigrant criminality.
• Conclusion: The claim contains subjective bias and overgeneralizes the motivations of lawmakers and supporters. However, it raises valid concerns about the disproportionate focus on immigration-related offenses.
5. Claim: The Laken Riley Act Violates Constitutional Precedents
• Analysis: The article suggests the act is unconstitutional because it enforces blanket pretrial detention without individualized assessments, violating the fundamental right to liberty. U.S. courts have previously ruled that prolonged detention without due process (e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis) is unconstitutional, even in immigration cases. However, the act’s provisions may seek to exploit legal loopholes or exceptions that allow for detention in certain contexts, such as national security or public safety concerns.
• Conclusion: The argument about unconstitutionality has substantial legal basis, but the claim that it is definitively unconstitutional requires further judicial review.
6. Claim: The Act Benefits Private Prisons and Surveillance Companies
• Analysis: The assertion that private prison and surveillance companies will profit from the act aligns with broader critiques of the privatization of immigration detention. There is evidence that such companies lobby for tougher immigration enforcement policies. However, the extent to which they directly influenced the Laken Riley Act is not substantiated in the article.
• Conclusion: The claim is plausible but lacks direct evidence tying private corporations to the specific legislation.
Overall Summary of Misinformation or Disinformation
The article raises valid concerns about the Laken Riley Act, particularly regarding its focus on pretrial detention, minor property crimes, and the broader implications for immigrants. However, it contains:
1. Overgeneralizations (e.g., that the retail theft crisis was entirely fabricated).
2. Bias (e.g., framing motivations as purely xenophobic without considering other perspectives).
3. Speculative Claims (e.g., direct corporate influence on the act).
While the article serves as a passionate critique, it mixes valid evidence with speculative and overstated claims. For a clearer understanding, it’s essential to rely on primary sources like the text of the bill itself, legal analyses, and neutral reporting.
Alex has always been quite meticulous in his research and he has seen the results of private prison lobbying and xenophobic right wing legislation as a result oftentimes as an over reaction. You may find the need to poke holes in his assumptions but is this really the place to be doing that?
I understand and respect that Alex has put a lot of effort into his research and has strong opinions on these issues. However, discussions like these are important precisely because differing perspectives can help us refine our understanding and challenge assumptions, including our own. Examining the potential biases or broader implications of any argument isn’t about dismissing Alex’s views but about fostering a deeper, more nuanced conversation. This space should welcome constructive dialogue, and I think it’s entirely appropriate to engage in that here, as long as it’s done respectfully. We all deserve as true a rendition of information as possible. It is only then that we can engage in decision making and activism that is truly constructive.
The constitutional bedrock of the United States as a sovereign entity is that is is governed by those residents defined as citizens. A citizen member of the Club has defined rights and responsibilities. At the end of the Civil War there was a turbulent time when who was in and who was out led to loyalty oaths and the Klan. The federal government has always fixed the policy to regulate immigration on one hand and to fix or reform the definition of civil rights.
The Biden administration opted to fail to enforce the outstanding enforcement of immigration and so enticed and abetted the entry into the territory of the United States large numbers of non-citizens. For many who are now settled into civil life and leading a productive life they will have to be given a fair proceedure to formalize their admission to The Club. Those who do not conform though are certainly subject to detention and deportation.
The enforcement problem with this 'bad' lot is where to park them. Forcibly shoving them into say, Mexico is hardly feasible. Naturally, the penal industry racketeers are salivating at the expected profits of a new large crop of criminalized personnel.
Maybe dump them in the Ukraine army and pay the Russians a fee for their certain attrition in combat. Or, sent them into the UK on rubber boats where the governing fools there will hardly object.
This bill makes me shudder with vehement anger at the MAGA MAROONS who thought that using Lakin Riley's name against her families wishes and politicizing the trauma that they have endured was an acceptable way to spread their zeniphobia in the halls of Congress. They knew that they had to do this after Joe Biden would have a chance to veto it and Deadbeat Donnie is in office to go along with it. They disgust me. 😒
I understand your frustration, especially when it comes to sensitive issues like this one. However, framing the discussion with such a destructive tone doesn’t move us closer to solutions—it polarizes us further. If we want to address the harm caused by this bill or its process, we need to engage in dialogue that focuses on actionable steps, not just anger. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.’ Let’s honor the families impacted by focusing on solutions that promote understanding and justice, rather than escalating division.