Lengthy detention of non-criminal immigrants in for-profit prisons is objectional on moral, humanitarian, and economic grounds.
- First, over two-thirds of individuals in ICE detention have no criminal convictions, thus negating the propaganda that the deportation effort targets dangerous criminals. Many are arrested at work. Many are arrested at court proceedings. If ICE wants to find criminals, they can simply focus on the jails and the justice system, which is already set up for this purpose.
- Taking men and women from their families, homes, and jobs has a devastating effect and serves as a form of cruel and costly punishment in service of the MAGA agenda of mass deportation.
- The vast majority of undocumented immigrants are employed and contribute to the work force and the tax base, even though they receive limited benefits, are not eligible for Social Security, and receive only limited Medicaid benefits in special cases. Placing them in prison is a double negative from an economic perspective.
$171 billion additional funding for DHS enforcement, next 4 years
$52 billion: Border wall, CBP checkpoints, CBP facilities
$45 billion: Additional ICE detention facilities
$30 billion: Agents, training, transportation
Source: American Immigration Council
A story of detention ...
By way of example, consider the trauma inflicted upon the wife and children of a local man who was detained in early July by a local Sheriff agency. He remains in ICE custody. This is a father, a grandfather, a business owner, and a church member, arrested for a traffic violation. For the first two days he was in a county jail, and I could not successfully initiate the fee-based video visitation system. Then the individual was transported by ICE to Atlanta, and the ICE maintained Immigrant Locator System referred inquiries to a phone number for information. This phone was never answered by a live person on multiple attempts throughout multiple business days. Six days later, the individual was transported to the Washington, D.C. area, where finally he was able to reach his family by phone, but they could not initiate any form of contact with him. After approximately one week, the individual was transported to the Folkston Detention Center in Georgia, with a phone number provided for visit and contact information. This phone message provided no contact procedures and offered "press the button" options that only played in a continuous loop with no escape. After a few days, I tried the number again and I was able to reach a live person on the phone. I stated my question asking for information on access to detainees, and the person transferred me to an ICE number. Again, I encountered a machine loop. At all of these locations, I am confident that stated procedures provided for the legally required ability to reach detainees in one way or another, however, the actual systems to implement these legal requirements consistently failed. Add to this the excessive cost of transporting this individual back and forth across the country and for what purpose, other than to intimidate and frustrate the individual and their family in an effort to motivate self-deportation.
For-profit detention providers ... High profit ... low oversight
- $45 billion in Big Bad Bill for ICE detention
- 90% provided by for-profit detention corporations, including...
- Core Civic (formerly CCA) reported 2nd quarter 2025 revenue of $538 million
- GEO Group reported 2nd quarter 2025 revenue of $636 million
Private for-profit prisons are raking in hundreds of millions in profits annually, yet they have a poor record on conditions of confinement and providing for the needs of detainees, including *medical care, *sanitation, *access to legal counsel, and *the ability of family and friends to contact detained individuals by phone or video.
Amanda Hernández reports on the rise of the Private Prison industry in recent years for Stateline. Whereas prisons and local jails fall under state oversight, there is little to no oversight for the private prisons operated for ICE detention. Hernández' reporting includes a map of the twenty largest ICE detention centers, all private, with most in Texas and Louisiana, each having more than five. Additional prisons are found in New Jersey, Georgia, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado. The largest providers also include LaSalle Corrections and MTC (Management and Training Corporation), each having three of the top 20 facilities as of January 2025 ICE data.
Diminishing oversight of rights violations and complaints
In 2025, the Trump administration has closed the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Office, and the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman. These actions speak for themselves, and raise the question: How is the federal government providing oversight of civil rights protections for detainees and how are complaints being investigated? (Source: Democracy Forward).
Costly long distance transfers...
On interstate transfers: Bloomberg 2025 report cites comments by the watchdog group "Freedom for Immigrants": Long distance transfers of ICE detainees is "a cruel and traumatizing form of abuse inflicted upon people in immigration detention that pulls them away from their families, communities and lawyers ... and is also part of a strategy to expedite deportations." In other words, detainees are purposefully transported far from home to create separation from families and impede access to legal representation and to compel self-deportation. This practice is extremely expensive, with removal flights at a cost of $17,000 per hour. Estimates are not readily available for the untold number of secure bus and plane flights employed annually to move individuals across long distances.
Why not electronic monitoring?
A much more humane and efficient method of keeping track of individuals due for immigration related court proceedings is to use electronic monitoring, at a cost of 2% to 4% the cost of detention, not including the lost wage and tax revenue and the impact on families and communities. Approximately 200,000 individuals are under electronic surveillance which provides ICE with location data and allows the individuals to remain with their families as productive members of the community. This is a much better alternative to incarceration easily justifiable for non-criminal detainees, however, it does not serve the agenda of inflicting punishment and creating fear and intimidation for immigrants and their families.
Sources and resources:
