Private Prison Corps & Arizona's Immigration law

[Bloodstain]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741

 

Last year, two men showed up in Benson, Ariz., a small desert town 60 miles from the Mexico border, offering a deal.

 

Glenn Nichols, the Benson city manager, remembers the pitch.

 

"The gentleman that's the main thrust of this thing has a huge turquoise ring on his finger," Nichols said. "He's a great big huge guy and I equated him to a car salesman."

 

What he was selling was a prison for women and children who were illegal immigrants.

 

 

"They talk [about] how positive this was going to be for the community," Nichols said, "the amount of money that we would realize from each prisoner on a daily rate."

 

But Nichols wasn't buying. He asked them how would they possibly keep a prison full for years — decades even — with illegal immigrants?

 

"They talked like they didn't have any doubt they could fill it," Nichols said.

 

That's because prison companies like this one had a plan — a new business model to lock up illegal immigrants. And the plan became Arizona's immigration law.

 

Behind-The-Scenes Effort To Draft, Pass The Law

 

The law is being challenged in the courts. But if it's upheld, it requires police to lock up anyone they stop who cannot show proof they entered the country legally.

 

When it was passed in April, it ignited a fire storm. Protesters chanted about racial profiling. Businesses threatened to boycott the state.

 

Supporters were equally passionate, calling it a bold positive step to curb illegal immigration.

 

But while the debate raged, few people were aware of how the law came about.

 

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: the private prison industry.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce

Enlarge Joshua Lott/Getty Images

 

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state's immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shaped the law.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

 

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state's immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shaped the law.

 

The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them.

 

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill was his idea. He says it's not about prisons. It's about what's best for the country.

 

"Enough is enough," Pearce said in his office, sitting under a banner reading "Let Freedom Reign." "People need to focus on the cost of not enforcing our laws and securing our border. It is the Trojan horse destroying our country and a republic cannot survive as a lawless nation."

 

But instead of taking his idea to the Arizona statehouse floor, Pearce first took it to a hotel conference room.

 

It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.

 

It's a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.

 

It was there that Pearce's idea took shape.

 

"I did a presentation," Pearce said. "I went through the facts. I went through the impacts and they said, 'Yeah.'"

 

Drafting The Bill

 

The 50 or so people in the room included officials of the Corrections Corporation of America, according to two sources who were there.

 

Pearce and the Corrections Corporation of America have been coming to these meetings for years. Both have seats on one of several of ALEC's boards.

Key Players That Helped Draft Arizona's Immigration Law

Key Players That Helped Draft Arizona's Immigration Law

 

And this bill was an important one for the company. 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.

 

In the conference room, the group decided they would turn the immigration idea into a model bill. They discussed and debated language. Then, they voted on it.

 

"There were no 'no' votes," Pearce said. "I never had one person speak up in objection to this model legislation."

 

Four months later, that model legislation became, almost word for word, Arizona's immigration law.

 

They even named it. They called it the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act."

 

"ALEC is the conservative, free-market orientated, limited-government group," said Michael Hough, who was staff director of the meeting.

 

Hough works for ALEC, but he's also running for state delegate in Maryland, and if elected says he plans to support a similar bill to Arizona's law.

 

Asked if the private companies usually get to write model bills for the legislators, Hough said, "Yeah, that's the way it's set up. It's a public-private partnership. We believe both sides, businesses and lawmakers should be at the same table, together."

 

Nothing about this is illegal. Pearce's immigration plan became a prospective bill and Pearce took it home to Arizona.

 

Campaign Donations

 

Pearce said he is not concerned that it could appear private prison companies have an opportunity to lobby for legislation at the ALEC meetings.

 

"I don't go there to meet with them," he said. "I go there to meet with other legislators."

 

Pearce may go there to meet with other legislators, but 200 private companies pay tens of thousands of dollars to meet with legislators like him.

 

As soon as Pearce's bill hit the Arizona statehouse floor in January, there were signs of ALEC's influence. Thirty-six co-sponsors jumped on, a number almost unheard of in the capitol. According to records obtained by NPR, two-thirds of them either went to that December meeting or are ALEC members.

 

That same week, the Corrections Corporation of America hired a powerful new lobbyist to work the capitol.

 

The prison company declined requests for an interview. In a statement, a spokesman said the Corrections Corporation of America, "unequivocally has not at any time lobbied — nor have we had any outside consultants lobby – on immigration law."

 

At the state Capitol, campaign donations started to appear.

 

Thirty of the 36 co-sponsors received donations over the next six months, from prison lobbyists or prison companies — Corrections Corporation of America, Management and Training Corporation and The Geo Group.

 

By April, the bill was on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk.

 

Brewer has her own connections to private prison companies. State lobbying records show two of her top advisers — her spokesman Paul Senseman and her campaign manager Chuck Coughlin — are former lobbyists for private prison companies. Brewer signed the bill — with the name of the legislation Pearce, the Corrections Corporation of America and the others in the Hyatt conference room came up with — in four days.

 

Brewer and her spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

 

In May, The Geo Group had a conference call with investors. When asked about the bill, company executives made light of it, asking, "Did they have some legislation on immigration?"

 

After company officials laughed, the company's president, Wayne Calabrese, cut in.

 

"This is Wayne," he said. "I can only believe the opportunities at the federal level are going to continue apace as a result of what's happening. Those people coming across the border and getting caught are going to have to be detained and that for me, at least I think, there's going to be enhanced opportunities for what we do."

 

Opportunities that prison companies helped create.

 

Produced by NPR's Anne Hawke.

 

 

So lobbyists making bills to their benefit, and getting them there with almost verbatim wording.

 

 

 

 

According to Corrections Corporation of America reports reviewed by NPR, executives believe immigrant detention is their next big market.

 

Ignoring the whole lobbyist thing, their next big market? Damn this infuriates me, they're messing with people's lives so they can make money. I'm not very educated on the subject, but boy do private prisons sound like a horrible idea.

[Orpheus]

I don't like this idea one bit. In fact, the idiot who suggested it should be disbarred from lawmaking forever. Really, taking their freedom, forcing what could be seen as slave labor on them, and they won't have any rights due to being in prison? This rubs me the wrong way on so many levels it's unbelievable. At least, that's how I'm seeing it.

 

And it's funny, all those lawmakers are getting sponsored... by prisons, no less. And deporting should still be the main method of dealing with illegal immigrants. I mean, if it isn't broken, why fix it?

[Bloodstain]

Worst part is no one is going to give a [cabbage]

[KittyKat]

Let them immigrate freely.

Harshly punish those that cause problems.

All will be well.

[Bloodstain]

Let them immigrate freely.

Harshly punish those that cause problems.

All will be well.

 

But then people won't have a scapegoat :cry:

[das1330]

I don't like this idea one bit. In fact, the idiot who suggested it should be disbarred from lawmaking forever. Really, taking their freedom, forcing what could be seen as slave labor on them, and they won't have any rights due to being in prison? This rubs me the wrong way on so many levels it's unbelievable. At least, that's how I'm seeing it.

 

And it's funny, all those lawmakers are getting sponsored... by prisons, no less. And deporting should still be the main method of dealing with illegal immigrants. I mean, if it isn't broken, why fix it?

 

The problem is that immigration in the United States is broken. The feds have proven themselves unable (or unwilling) to control illegal immigration as is their job through ICE, so Arizona took matters into its own hands. While it is not an ideal solution, it is not a bad one, either. As to taking peoples' freedom - just remember that those people broke the law under both the old and new definitions. Arizona is simply enforcing laws which already exist.

[Range_This11]

I was to the point of pushing the post topic button this morning when I read it. I was too lazy to type an opening post that would warrant discussion.

 

On topic...I think this is ridiculous, privatized prisons are a very lucrative business and should be shut down in my opinion.

[Orpheus]

I don't like this idea one bit. In fact, the idiot who suggested it should be disbarred from lawmaking forever. Really, taking their freedom, forcing what could be seen as slave labor on them, and they won't have any rights due to being in prison? This rubs me the wrong way on so many levels it's unbelievable. At least, that's how I'm seeing it.

 

And it's funny, all those lawmakers are getting sponsored... by prisons, no less. And deporting should still be the main method of dealing with illegal immigrants. I mean, if it isn't broken, why fix it?

 

The problem is that immigration in the United States is broken. The feds have proven themselves unable (or unwilling) to control illegal immigration as is their job through ICE, so Arizona took matters into its own hands. While it is not an ideal solution, it is not a bad one, either. As to taking peoples' freedom - just remember that those people broke the law under both the old and new definitions. Arizona is simply enforcing laws which already exist.

 

I won't deny that immigration is a problem, even if this is something of a solution. I'm only saying this can and probably will set one nasty precedent for other bills like this. Even then, what guarantee is there that the prisoners will be treated fairly? This almost violates the 15th Amendment of the Constitution, if only for the fact that the Constitution doesn't cover non-citizens, and if anyone who was a citizen is forced into this, then it WILL violate it. Those that are already here though, shouldn't be punished under this bill though. I say this as a person who simply thinks that forcing anyone into what is essentially slavery is absolutely disgusting, no matter the precedent. I don't think they'll be seeing freedom, or the fruits of their efforts.

 

If these immigrants can be granted something for this, whether it be citizenship and freedom, then I'd be all for it provided there were protections in place for prisoners.

[Dupin]

Our government is dominated by lobbyists, party politics, and private sponsors. This is old news.

 

There's a great metaphor here as far as scapegoats go, but I don't want to prove Godwin's Law.

[Sir_Squab]

I got to the point where THE PERSON WANTING TO LOCK PEOPLE UP was under a banner that read LET FREEDOM REIGN. WTF!?

 

And I don't give a rats ass what the politician claimed about the bill, as best as I can infer from the article, the bill came into existence to help private prisons make money. Oh wait, that's capitalism.

[Giordano]

I don't like this idea one bit. In fact, the idiot who suggested it should be disbarred from lawmaking forever. Really, taking their freedom, forcing what could be seen as slave labor on them, and they won't have any rights due to being in prison? This rubs me the wrong way on so many levels it's unbelievable. At least, that's how I'm seeing it.

 

And it's funny, all those lawmakers are getting sponsored... by prisons, no less. And deporting should still be the main method of dealing with illegal immigrants. I mean, if it isn't broken, why fix it?

 

The problem is that immigration in the United States is broken. The feds have proven themselves unable (or unwilling) to control illegal immigration as is their job through ICE, so Arizona took matters into its own hands. While it is not an ideal solution, it is not a bad one, either. As to taking peoples' freedom - just remember that those people broke the law under both the old and new definitions. Arizona is simply enforcing laws which already exist.

I'm sorry, but there's a huge [bleep]ing difference between laws and basic human rights. Laws are not fundamental degrees from God, some are wrong, like limiting the selling of rifles or banning Christianity. You out of all people should know laws are not good and ought to be enforced.

[Skeptical]

I have no idea why limiting the sale of rifles is wrong. I can understand banning a specific religion being morally reprehensible though. It's either all of them, or none of them.

 

Why though, can wars now be privatized (Blackwater) but not the prison system? Hell, let's just skip the courts: I'm sure that we can find a corporation to conduct trials, and it'll probably be faster.

 

/saracasm

[KittyKat]

I have no idea why limiting the sale of rifles is wrong. I can understand banning a specific religion being morally reprehensible though. It's either all of them, or none of them.

 

Why though, can wars now be privatized (Blackwater) but not the prison system? Hell, let's just skip the courts: I'm sure that we can find a corporation to conduct trials, and it'll probably be faster.

 

/saracasm

Privitization of the courts system is a great idea especially with companies with as strong a reputation as Blackwater/Xe; after all, "You're an X-wing fighter. Star Wars man..."

[magekillr]

I don't like this idea one bit. In fact, the idiot who suggested it should be disbarred from lawmaking forever. Really, taking their freedom, forcing what could be seen as slave labor on them, and they won't have any rights due to being in prison? This rubs me the wrong way on so many levels it's unbelievable. At least, that's how I'm seeing it.

 

And it's funny, all those lawmakers are getting sponsored... by prisons, no less. And deporting should still be the main method of dealing with illegal immigrants. I mean, if it isn't broken, why fix it?

 

The problem is that immigration in the United States is broken. The feds have proven themselves unable (or unwilling) to control illegal immigration as is their job through ICE, so Arizona took matters into its own hands. While it is not an ideal solution, it is not a bad one, either. As to taking peoples' freedom - just remember that those people broke the law under both the old and new definitions. Arizona is simply enforcing laws which already exist.

 

Arizona "taking it into their own hands" is unconstitutional. Immigration is clearly a power outlined specifically for the Federal Government, not to mention that this law violates so many other amendments. How can you say it's "not a bad one"? This is going to increase the Prison Industrial Complex's power in this country. It's bad enough we have a MIC that will whine if we shave off $1 trillion over 10 years, we don't need another bloated industry stealing tax payer money for things that don't work and make problems worse. The PIC makes more criminals than it imprisons, it doesn't rectify problems in society. These immigration prisons especially are known houses of torture and rape. It's outright disgusting and definitely revealing of your character that you see this as "not a bad solution." It's not even a solution; some expect the problem to grow worse specifically because of the law, and it is expected to harm the economy of Arizona.

 

Immigration to the US is broken, and it's not because of lax Federal enforcement of the border, it's lax enforcement over businesses who hire and exploit their slave labor; not to mention the length of time it takes to immigrate here legally, nor the hoops one has to jump through to make it so:

 

[hide]http://reason.org/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf

 

[/hide]

[sees_all1]

We need to build a huge wall about 50 feet in from the border, and a second wall behind that. The walls should be high, and deep too. Adding guards on the second wall every few miles, along with a camera system should keep the whole thing in check. Open borders are a security issue, and make it very easy for anyone to cross the border (from Mexico or Canadia)

 

If you want to come to the US, do it legally. There's a process for immigration and becoming a naturalized citizen, and everyone needs to play by the rules.

As a benefit to keeping illegals out, we'll know that everyone in the US is legal, and the only people we need to worry about are those that came in by airport and overstayed their visa.

 

People that are here illegally should be shipped back to their native country, but only after we've built that wall. There's no point or purpose detaining them for more than a month, prisoners waste tax dollars, especially with jail overcrowding as it is.

[Giordano]

We need to build a huge wall about 50 feet in from the border, and a second wall behind that. The walls should be high, and deep too. Adding guards on the second wall every few miles, along with a camera system should keep the whole thing in check. Open borders are a security issue, and make it very easy for anyone to cross the border (from Mexico or Canadia)

 

If you want to come to the US, do it legally. There's a process for immigration and becoming a naturalized citizen, and everyone needs to play by the rules.

As a benefit to keeping illegals out, we'll know that everyone in the US is legal, and the only people we need to worry about are those that came in by airport and overstayed their visa.

 

People that are here illegally should be shipped back to their native country, but only after we've built that wall. There's no point or purpose detaining them for more than a month, prisoners waste tax dollars, especially with jail overcrowding as it is.

You know you just discribed the Berlin Wall?

 

 

You REALLY want America to become the oppressor they so long fought against?

 

Use some common sense and respect for your fellow man first, people.

[sees_all1]

You know you just discribed the Berlin Wall?

 

You REALLY want America to become the oppressor they so long fought against?

 

Use some common sense and respect for your fellow man first, people.

 

Berlin Wall really was meant for keeping people in East Berlin, not out. The problem is immigrants, not emigrants.

[Giordano]

You know you just discribed the Berlin Wall?

 

You REALLY want America to become the oppressor they so long fought against?

 

Use some common sense and respect for your fellow man first, people.

 

Berlin Wall really was meant for keeping people in East Berlin, not out. The problem is immigrants, not emigrants.

It doesn't matter. Building a wall to have guards, which would have to be able to shoot for their purpose there is otherwise useless, to keep people locked in their hellhole and not giving them a chance to change their lives for the better, is the same thing as the Soviet Union did to their residents.

 

Walls are not the solution. Banning people from entering this country, is not the solution either. Being a big racist jackass about it, is certainly not the solution for it either.

[Range_This11]

A wall is most definitely not the answer. I know hundreds of illegal immigrants that work on the dairy farms back home in WI for dirt wages but they don't care because it's better than life was before they came here. There needs to be punishment not for the immigrants, but for the businesses that hire them.

[Giordano]

A wall is most definitely not the answer. I know hundreds of illegal immigrants that work on the dairy farms back home in WI for dirt wages but they don't care because it's better than life was before they came here. There needs to be punishment not for the immigrants, but for the businesses that hire them.

Not even that, we just need to let them be able to work here. Visas, work permits, and if they're willing to stay here and start a new life, start giving them the first steps to residency. It's the same way as now but with a lot more openings and a much faster process.

 

How can they break a law if there is none?

[sees_all1]

It doesn't matter. Building a wall to have guards, which would have to be able to shoot for their purpose there is otherwise useless, to keep people locked in their hellhole and not giving them a chance to change their lives for the better, is the same thing as the Soviet Union did to their residents.

 

Walls are not the solution. Banning people from entering this country, is not the solution either. Being a big racist jackass about it, is certainly not the solution for it either.

 

The point of a wall is to force people to enter and exit the country at specific locations, not to stop them from entering or exiting altogether.

I'm not against immigration in general, but I am against illegal immigration. Putting a wall up on all borders isn't racist, illegal isn't a race. The problem isn't just Mexico right now, we have a huge border with Canadia too. Both allow for illegals to enter and stay in the country, which includes people that don't like us very much (how easy is it for a terrorist to move from one country to another by taking a short hike).

 

The current issue at hand would become easier and cheaper to solve once the movement of non-citizens is controlled. It isn't, and that's causing major problems.

[Dupin]

As Giordano said, the solution is not a bigger wall (which would really just be throwing more taxpayer money out the window), but a more streamlined immigration system. If it's easier to enter the country legally than it is to do so illegally, we won't have this issue.

[sees_all1]

As Giordano said, the solution is not a bigger wall (which would really just be throwing more taxpayer money out the window), but a more streamlined immigration system. If it's easier to enter the country legally than it is to do so illegally, we won't have this issue.

 

If entering legally means filling out any paperwork, it will always be easier to enter illegally (unless there's a wall).

[Dupin]

As Giordano said, the solution is not a bigger wall (which would really just be throwing more taxpayer money out the window), but a more streamlined immigration system. If it's easier to enter the country legally than it is to do so illegally, we won't have this issue.

 

If entering legally means filling out any paperwork, it will always be easier to enter illegally (unless there's a wall).

Right. Because most immigrants are illiterate and there isn't already a wall with large numbers of armed guards.

[Giordano]

As Giordano said, the solution is not a bigger wall (which would really just be throwing more taxpayer money out the window), but a more streamlined immigration system. If it's easier to enter the country legally than it is to do so illegally, we won't have this issue.

 

If entering legally means filling out any paperwork, it will always be easier to enter illegally (unless there's a wall).

Your ignorance is vast. If it was just paperwork, the only "immigrants" that would enter illegally will be drug smugglers and REAL criminals. It's the wait time on the paperwork that forces immigrants to illegally get in the country. If it was a much faster process with a greater chance on being "Accepted" then we would not have this problem.

 

As for the wall, if conservatives are so against spending money why is building a huge wall any different? Oh wait, money spent on oppressing others is okay.