commodification of immigrants in detention centers

INTRODUCTION

• Privately managed detention centers hold the majority of detained immigrants in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.
• Coerced detainee labor is common in for-profit facilities, which violates the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) prohibitions on forced labor.

I. THE RISE OF FOR-PROFIT DETENTION

• Profit Motive: Profiting from incarceration has evolved; the focus has shifted towards for-profit detention centers since the 1980s.
• Historical Context:
  • Early labor from prisoners was used to defray costs.
  • Post-Civil War, Southern states began leasing convicts for labor, leading to extensive abuses.
• New Paradigm (1980s): After the advent of private prison management, companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group emerged, focusing heavily on immigrant detention.

A. Private Prisons Before the 1980s

• Early prisons utilized inmate labor for cost-saving but without a for-profit model.
• Post-Civil War economic recovery prompted states to utilize convict leasing extensively.

B. Today’s System of For-Profit Incarceration

• The growth of private prison companies has been consistent since the 1980s, based on increasingly punitive immigration policies.
• The privatization of prisons often does not result in cost savings, with private entities frequently cutting costs at the expense of safety and care.

C. For-Profit Detention Corporations in Immigration Detention

• Key Players: CoreCivic and GEO Group dominate this space.
• 70% of detained immigrants are housed in for-profit facilities, significantly impacting the detention landscape.

II. ICE WORK POLICIES

• Voluntary Work Program (VWP) and Mandatory Housekeeping Labor are alleged to violate TVPA provisions.
• Participants in VWP earn minimal wages ($1/day), with claims that participation is essentially coerced due to lack of essentials.

III. TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT

A. Text

• The TVPA prohibits obtaining labor via coercive means.
• Serious harm defined as broadly inclusive of physical and psychological harm.

B. Legislative History

• Established to combat limited definitions of involuntary servitude as noted in the Supreme Court case United States v. Kozminski.
• Determined to cover forms of coercion beyond physical threats.

C. Class Actions under TVPA

• Class certifications under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been seen as achievable due to the broad language of the TVPA.
• Recent cases include Menocal v. GEO Group and Barrientos v. CoreCivic, addressing issues of forced labor in detention.

IV. TVPA LITIGATION AND POTENTIAL MAJOR CHANGES TO IMMIGRATION DETENTION

• Ongoing lawsuits could lead to reforms within the for-profit detention system, increasing operational costs.
• Future Impact: Employers may be forced to cease coercive labor practices leading to a potential decrease in profitability and a shift away from mass immigration detention.

V. CONCLUSION

• The TVPA provides a crucial legal framework to challenge exploitative labor practices in for-profit detention centers.
• Successful litigation could lead to significant shifts in immigration detention use and encourage policies against forced labor.