Search

Prior to watching Netflix's hit show, Squid Game, I was proud to say that I was someone who was a true connoisseur of reality television. Like millions of Americans who tune in to their favorite "trash TV" show, I would always look forward to turning on my TV at the end of a long day, sitting back in my pajamas, and binge-watching my favorite reality television shows. And, unlike many viewers, I was not ashamed to say this was one of my favorite hobbies. However, after watching Squid Game, my passion for reality television also grew into a concern for the potential welfare of the various participants. Although the show is highly dramatized in its portrayal of the harm done to participants in a competition-based reality program, Squid Game provides a useful springboard for discussion to see what could possibly happen if we continue to allow executives and networks to do as they like (without regard for the welfare of their participants) . . . all for the sake of drawing in ratings and maintaining the attention of viewers. This article examines the multitude of potential legal issues involved in reality television show participation through an exploration of the various abuses done to both Squid Game and "real life" reality TV participants. Then, after evaluating the near unconscionability of real-life reality television arrangements, this Article will provide two solutions that could even out the playing field between networks/producers/executives and participants: (1) adoption of the Ofcom duty of care standard in reality television contracts that the UK implemented in December 2020 and (2) permitted unionization of reality television participants in order to ensure more effective bargaining. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The years of the Trump Administration have certainly been some of the most divisive in modern American political history. One of the largest divides arose from former President Trump's brazen, "zero tolerance" immigration policies that relentlessly attacked many forms of immigration coming into the United States. Asylum-based immigration, which allows immigrants to come to this country as a safe haven when they are fleeing persecution in their home countries, was one of former President Trump's main targets. Former President Trump even came dangerously close to eliminating asylum-based immigration with his "Death to Asylum" policy in December of 2020. President Biden has since reversed many of former President Trump's detrimental asylum policies and enacted executive orders that facilitate asylum-based immigration. While asylum-based immigration has been saved by President Biden (for now), the actions of the Trump Administration have highlighted the issues regarding lack of consistency and over-delegation to the executive branch that plague immigration law to this day. This Note will examine various sources of asylum law, both prior to and during the Trump Administration, and evaluate the constitutionality of asylum policies between 2016 and 2020. Finally, this Note will give four recommendations future administrations can implement in order to provide fairer and more consistent asylum policies that are not so dependent on which President happens to be in power at the time: (1) creating a direct, fair, and inclusive path to citizenship; (2) decreasing ICE's role in exchange for increasing the EOIR's presence; (3) changing the focus in creating available facilities to immigrants; and (4) guaranteeing legal representation in immigration proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]