Back in October, NPR presented the results of their investigation into the writing of Arizona’s notorious anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. I was listening to NPR when the story first aired, and I was stunned. The discussion of the law, which allows Arizona law enforcement officers to ask people they stop for proof of citizenship/legal immigration (and to arrest them if they don’t have it), has generally left out one important part of the story: the role of the private prison industry (the above link has an audio file of the story; you can get a complete transcript here):
NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it…
Corrections Corporation of America, a for-profit prison company, used its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that brings government officials and corporate representatives together, to lobby for and shape the wording of the bill, which they see as being in their direct interest:
According to Corrections Corporation of America reports reviewed by NPR, executives believe immigrant detention is their next big market. Last year, they wrote that they expect to bring in “a significant portion of our revenues” from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that detains illegal immigrants.
Once the bill was introduced, CCA began lobbying the broader Arizona legislature. This graphic illustrates the interconnections between ALEC, private prison companies, and final sponsorship of the bill. Of the co-sponsors of the bill, only 6 didn’t receive campaign contributions from the private prison industry (represented by the dollar signs), and the vast majority had either been at the ALEC meeting or were at least members:
In a foll0w-up story (transcript here), NPR explains how ALEC’s “conferences” allow legislators to meet with corporations but get around regulations that normally require disclosure of corporate gifts:
Videos and photos from one recent ALEC conference show banquets, open bar parties and baseball games — all hosted by corporations. Tax records show the group spent $138,000 to keep legislators’ children entertained for the week. But the legislators don’t have to declare these as corporate gifts…legislators can just say they went to ALEC’s conference. They don’t have to declare which corporations sponsored these events.
I know that corporations regularly lobby legislators. That in and of itself shouldn’t be surprising — or even inherently problematic if done in a transparent manner. But I have to say, thinking about the fact that private prison industries are actively lobbying to get elected officials to create new categories of crime so they’ll have to lock up more people, and that this connection was ignored for over 6 months after the bill was implemented, struck me as particularly disturbing — as did the fact that once this came out, we haven’t seen any widespread backlash or citizen outcry at the idea that there are companies that directly stand to benefit from putting people in jail helping to write and pass criminal codes.
Comments 20
Diamond — December 13, 2010
next you USA-sians will have a for-profit government...
Hagan — December 13, 2010
The Prison Industrial complex and it's side deals are major players. For example just look at the profits that phone companies make through exclusive contracts. It is literally a captive audience.
Tom S — December 13, 2010
I recall a similar case with a huge push to re-criminalize marijuana in California being underwritten by their for-profit prison industry. It's both horrifying and an obvious, immediate effect of allowing such an industry to exist.
Laura — December 13, 2010
It's important to make these links. The same company owns the largest women's prison in Australia, too, where a disproporationate number of indigenous people are incarcerated. CCA and others of its ilk are voracious and an intregal part of the globalizing of our racist prison industrual complex.
George — December 14, 2010
Illegal immigration is hardly a "new category of crime". It has long been a crime and now there is a law that increases the enforcement of that law. In principle I think that is a good thing, although I would like to see the rate for legal immigration increased.
But I think it's true at least that private prisons come with some perverse incentives and are probably a bad idea.
Fritz — December 14, 2010
Weird. Perhaps I am completely uneducated but when I worked as a probation officer, individuals who were undocumented were just...deported.
I guess I need to brush up on my knowledge of criminal law, but it strikes me that if a person is indeed undocumented, conservatives might think prison isn't much of an option since the American taxpayers are ultimately paying for the penitentiary--regardless if it's a private OR public facility.
In any case, it strikes me as doubly awful to arrest someone for being here illegally and then put that person in an American private prison. "You can stay, but only if you are suffering".
ImmigrationYesbutLegalporfavor — December 14, 2010
Some good points in general about the for-profit prison industry.
The headline "Arizona anti-immigration law" is incorrect. Are you really arguing that the law would put a legal immigrant in jail or force that person to leave the country?
It is now standard verbal manipulation to conflate illegal with LEGAL immigration simply because it's so darn hard to justify illegal activity. So you create a political straw man who opposes all immigration. At least NORML acknowledges pot is currently illegal when they chant "Legalize it".
The AZ law would only allow police to ask for ID if they are stopping the person for suspicion of some other offense.
Illegal immigration is not a "new category" of crime. Why even make such a specious claim?
Did you know that the US, like most countries, already requires non-citizens to carry their ID (passport, etc) with them and this has been the law for a long time?
Personally, I am in favor of welcoming in a large number of immigrants, but it should be done in a legal manner for. They bring an amazing of amount of vitality to the US. The immigration process should be made faster and smoother for applicants.
Does it concern you that the Mexican government lobbies the US to allow some of it's citizens to violate US immigration law? There is a money motive there too.
If you expected a large majority of illegal immigrants to register as Republicans after attaining citizenship, I doubt you would pretend to not know the difference between legal and illegal. I think you would be as a firm law-and-order advocate as you currently are for "undocumented" firearms.
Yngve Digernes — December 14, 2010
My dissertation was a case study of the Corrections corporation of America. I'll send you a pdf of it if you are interested in reading it: ydigernes@ccis.edu
Village Idiot — December 14, 2010
Profiting off of imprisonment is among the most myopic and culturally corrosive vested interests I've ever heard of (not unlike slavery). Those involved in it are loathsome bottom-feeder parasites who will hopefully one day end up sitting inside of one of their own fine facilities, preferably on an energized electric chair. But if we're keeping profitability in mind, then a firing squad would be a better choice since we can get cheap bullets manufactured and sent over from China.
And speaking of outsourcing, when these private prison scumbags have locked up as many U.S. citizens as they can profitably manage here, I would not be surprised to hear that they're opening facilities in other countries with cheaper labor and no pesky Bill of Rights to deal with, and that they're going to be sending U.S. prisoners there so as to maintain the profitability their investors are accustomed to. The desires of the shareholders are paramount, so something like that will ultimately have to be done and it could be argued that there's a precedent for something similar at Guantanamo Bay.
And about that Bill of Rights, how does the 5th Amendment not apply? It's a strange Constitutional issue since we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and are protected from self-incrimination by the 5th Amendment, but we're also required to identify ourselves if we're detained by an officer who has reasonable suspicion that the person they detained was involved in a crime.
Well, if I AM a legal U.S. citizen or resident alien, technically all I have to do is identify myself to an officer who asks, and then only if he/she has "reasonable articulable suspicion" for detaining me (there is NO legal requirement for citizens to carry ID unless they're driving or in a few other limited contexts). How would an officer stopping someone be able to figure out their immigration status, then? If a someone being detained produces a driver's license (which can be obtained by illegal aliens more easily than most people think) there's nothing on it to indicate being illegally in the country. If the officer asks for proof of citizenship or legal resident status and the subject says "I'm a citizen so I don't have to carry that" (which is true) then what happens next? Where is the probable cause to arrest them, especially if they "remain silent" like any intelligent person would? I'm not articulating my thoughts very well here but I hope they make enough sense to illustrate what I'm getting at.
Quoting from earlier comment:
The AZ law would only allow police to ask for ID if they are stopping the person for suspicion of some other offense.
That almost sounds reasonable, doesn't it? The problem is that police are experts at creating reasonable suspicion and an officer can legally stop anyone if he/she follows them long enough (on foot or in a vehicle) because all of us will eventually break SOME law (however trite it might be), but in this case it's enough to allow the officer to ask us for our ID (or rather, for "your papers, please"). If you think that's an exaggeration, I can link a video or two of veteran police officers explaining in detail how they do it. On second thought, I'll just post a link right now to a clip that everyone in the U.S. should see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related
So now let's say you choose to exercise your right to remain silent when asked for proof of citizenship, citing the 5th Amendment and following the advice in the video linked above. Let's also say your "crime" is a petty misdemeanor that is not an arrestable offense. Now what? Do you get arrested for failing to prove your citizenship? If you are a citizen, that is an unlawful arrest under Federal law, if not Arizona's (which is trumped by Federal law). If you are not a citizen, the officer has no way to prove it unless you give up your right to remain silent, and assuming you didn't waive that right you get arrested without any probable cause, which is also an unlawful arrest. I think this kind of legal lunacy is called a "Catch-22."
Oh, and I've seen a massive increase in Arizona license plates showing up here in the Southeast lately. Makes me wonder how so many illegal aliens manage to buy and legally register cars and drive them across the country... Or if they're not illegal aliens then I'm wondering why so many people are leaving Arizona all of a sudden; police harassment, perhaps? But the AZ Governor said the law wasn't racist, so that can't be it... can it?
mag — December 28, 2010
These prisons are for American citizens that do not cmply with Der Homeland Security and the Patriot Act and excercise their freedom of speesh, Wolf
ma — December 28, 2010
Open your eyes to the lies: Pearl Harbor,Kennedy assination Texas,Cuba, (bushSR was in middle east then in oil then Penzoil )LBJ; Gulf of Tonkin create reason for war ,911.INSIDE JOB. and the security for the towers was the responsibility of GB nephew j b. People WAKEup . before you have to have a passport to leave your own state.Just look atb the truth seekers wikileak.... This us the same tactic that the Socialists and Hitler used to keep the people in fear of absolutly nothing so to impose laws that take away our constitutional rgts or preoccupied with economic burden so that laws like the patriot act can eek through and Blackwater and David Staterfield does not show up at the door with "Prince Erik"..The men in black or the subcontracted militia from other countries that dont have a problem with putting us all in the ground .. it was the highest bidder??? We need to understand this.. HR 1955 A bill that needs to be killed .Times have changed and many do not recognioze that "criticism=espionage" and dissent=Terrorism iIt is a NWO and we need to be aware ... that is all .
ma — December 28, 2010
In Plane Site Video
ma — December 28, 2010
I have been there and ya know it is all BS
The U.S. Prison System | Environmental, Health and Safety News — September 27, 2011
[...] For more on private prisons and their lobbying efforts, see our earlier post on the role of Corrections Corporation of America in passage of the Arizona anti-immigration law. [...]
Why prison privatization is a bad idea | Phil Ebersole's Blog — April 24, 2013
[...] law allowing for arrests of people who can’t produce proof of citizenship. Click on Private Prisons and the Arizona Anti-Immigration Law for [...]