How Profits In Prison Corporations Shape Immigration Detention And Deportation Policies
Licensed under Creative Commons 2.0
In September, a US Appeals court deemed California’s ban on privately-owned immigration detention centres unlawful. The decision was made in a suit brought by the Biden Administration and the GEO Group- one of the largest private prison operators in America and a former Trump donor that made 24% of their $2.26 billion revenue from ICE contracts in 2017.
The issue of privately owned immigration detention facilities has been in the American political consciousness for years now, particularly during the Trump administration’s aggressive crackdown on immigrants in the US. This ruling shows that Biden’s election does not mark the shift in policy seen in criminal detention.Despite the California governor’s opposition to for-profit immigration detention, the Supreme Court with its conservative majority, is unlikely to overturn the decision. In fact, Biden campaigned on a platform that included ending “prolonged” detention and the use of private prisons but the number of those in detention more than doubled in his first six months and remains at a consistent level- (25,134 as of September 2022 - still less than half of Trump’s all-time high). Two private prison contracts have been terminated; however, these were in cases where serious human rights violations had been reported.
According to the ruling, the ICE contracts the running of detention centres out to private companies for the sake of prudence. There are “significant fluctuations” in the number and location of detained individuals and therefore in the number of contracts, than federally owned facilities allow for more flexibility. However, as the consistently high detention figures demonstrate, detained populations are not fluctuating, which is hardly surprising as these contracts incentivise higher populations.
In the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010, Senator Robert Byrd introduced a quota that mandated a minimum of 33,400 detention beds to be continuously maintained. This quota has increased in subsequent acts; although there is no requirement for the beds to be continuously full (despite Representative John Culberson’s suggestion) it is interpreted as such nonetheless. Additionally, a report from the Detention Watch Network and the Center for Constitutional Rights found that contracts between ICE and private prison operators guarantee minimum payments for a fixed number of beds, supplementary to the original bed quota, which allows operators to take advantage by overbuying beds, regardless of use. In May 2020 alone the ICE paid $20.5 million on an average of 12,000 unused beds a day. Furthermore, the contracts also include a tiered pricing structure, which stipulates a discounted per-diem rate for any detainees incarcerated in excess of the minimum. A 2014 report by the Government Accountability Office found that ICE field offices will monitor the facilities with these bed quotas, and assign individuals there where possible. Concerningly, if the population falls below the minimum, officials can even call the field office directors and ask why these minimums are not being met.
In any instance, incentivising detention encourages the undue deprivation of liberty, while more viable, less harmful alternatives are bypassed. Immigration detention is a civil rather than a criminal instrument, and should only be used for the processing and preparation of individuals for possible deportation. High levels of incarceration are therefore often redundant, and only necessary where inmates may have previous convictions or present a significant flight risk - this is not the case for the vast majority of detainees as many have strong community ties. Detainees like Querem Bequiri’s father, who, when the ICE officers came to the house while Querem was getting ready for school, was taken to Elizabeth Detention Centre whilst her mother was released with a tracking device.
Querem’s father is not alone. Pressure to fulfil congressional and contractual bed quotas inevitably leads to trends in undue incarceration of vulnerable people, such as asylum seekers or LGBTQ+ people. According to the Centre for American Progress, around 70% of LGBTQ+ detainees are eligible for release due to their higher risk in detention, and yet in 68% of cases, ICE officers elected to detain them regardless. Frustrated by the legal system, many turn to hunger strikes.
Overturning the Californian ban is only the most recent legal challenge to be thwarted. The Accountability in Immigration Detention and Protecting Taxpayers and Communities from Local Detention Quotas Acts never advanced further than the introduction. In fact, many private prison operators have extended their contracts while the GEO group - already exploiting detainees through labour compensated with minimal or no pay - have acquired the company along with the exclusive contract to provide supervised release, or the use of monitoring devices. These ought to be used as an alternative to detention, instead, they are used as an alternative to release. Community- based programs, run by non-profit organisations, have not only been found to be far more humane, but would also offer a more just alternative that helps to foster trust in communities.
Sources:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/09/26/20-56172.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/05/migrant-detention-border-biden-politics
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/quickfacts/
https://apnews.com/article/immigration-government-and-politics-cfa4dbb16a9db9bb25d9cd0db873a32a
