Support for Privatized Detention

Compared to previous years, supporters of privatized detention denied the existence of problems within the private prison industry relatively more often (i.e., a difference of 12%; see table 1) and more forcefully in the Trump era. Before Trump’s election, advocates of privatized immigration detention denied the existence of problems or deflected attention away from private prison scandals by blaming individual employees or other entities, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In recent years, however, responses to criticisms were more unequivocal, with such frames outright denying the existence of problems. For example, in response to the Obama administration’s announcement to phase out private prisons, an MTC spokesperson wrote: “[t]o base this decision on cost, safety and security, and programming is wrong” (Savage Reference Savage2016, A.11). In another article, a GEO spokesperson claimed that allegations of abuse within its facilities were “completely baseless” and that “federal authorities reviewed that situation and ‘found that the officers acted in accordance with established protocol’” (Haberman Reference Haberman2018, A.17). Furthermore, in the previous period, actors commonly described how the industry was attempting to address identified problems—a strategy that was significantly less common in the recent period (30% and 10%, respectively; see table 1).

Additionally, advocates were more likely to argue that the industry provides a much-needed service in the Trump era. Although the difference is not statistically significant (see table 1), a qualitative difference between the two eras emerged within this frame. In the Trump era, supporters are much more explicit about why privatized detention is needed, citing Trump’s immigration policies or an increase in the number of undocumented immigrants. Consider, for example, statements from representatives of two different private prison companies, one of which argued that his company is prepared to help meet the “escalation of capacity need for all three federal agencies [i.e., ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and the US Marshals Service] as a result of the president’s new executive orders” (Sommer Reference Sommer2017). Another representative unambiguously connected his company’s growth to migrant children: “Our growth is in direct response to kids coming to the border” (Fernandez and Benner Reference Fernandez and Benner2018, A.15).

In summary, in the Trump era, supporters of privatized immigration control are more vocal in their unwavering support of the industry compared to the previous era, wherein supporters often recognized the well-documented problems associated with for-profit detainment. Moreover, proponents in the recent timeframe were more likely to reference Trump’s role in the increased need for detention services. Taken together, these findings indicate that proponents have become emboldened and more forthright in their support for privatized immigration detention and in acknowledging Trump’s relationship with the industry.

These shifts likely stem from recent openings in the DOS due to the Trump administration’s immigration narratives and policies. The DOS refers to ideas in the broader culture “believed to be ‘sensible,’ ‘realistic,’ and ‘legitimate’ and that facilitate the reception of certain movement frames” (Koopmans and Statham Reference Koopmans and Statham1999; McCammon et al. Reference McCammon, Newman, Muse and Terrell2007, 731). Although the DOS is most commonly associated with social movement framing, there is wider utility of the framework when conceptualized as part of the broader political opportunity structure (Kriesi Reference Kriesi, Snow, Soule and Kriesi2004). Although “crimmigration” increased under past administrations, most notably during the Obama administration, the Trump administration has escalated anti-immigration practices. An arguably more striking distinction, however, is the Trump administration’s use of blatant racist and nativist rhetoric to justify such actions. The surge of anti-immigrant discourse and policies at the highest level of office appears to have enabled supporters of privatized immigration control to be bolder and more explicit in their public support of the industry. It may also have encouraged journalists to rely on and capture more quotes from advocates of the industry compared to the previous era. Table 2 shows that in the Trump era, employees (most of whom were spokespersons) of private prison corporations comprised a significantly higher share of sources that were quoted in news media coverage (i.e., a 9% difference).

Table 2

Frequency and Percent Share of Sources Quoted Before and After Trump’s Election

Note: *p<0.05 (Chi-squared tests of independence).

Yet, advocates of the industry did not outwardly embrace the virulent racism and nativism espoused by the president, which is indicative of the complexity of the DOS. The DOS allows for narratives that rely on a host of available ideologies. Insofar as they are political instruments, these narratives are flexible in their application across contexts, adapting to meet the goals of the dominant group (Brooks, Ebert, and Flockhart Reference Brooks, Ebert and Flockhart2017; Jackman Reference Jackman1994). Although Trump’s extremist rhetoric may resonate with a segment of the population, news media coverage of justifications of privatized immigration control did not include blatant racism. Changes in the DOS have signaled to proponents (and journalists who rely on them as sources) that more straightforward appeals are legitimate and may resonate with the broader public. Such changes have not, however, legitimized the use of racism typified by the current administration.

Opposition to Privatized Detention

Our analysis also reveals changes in narratives from those opposed to the industry. In the Trump era, frames emphasizing human rights violations in privatized immigration control were more prevalent (i.e., an 11% difference; see table 1) and more complex. Before 2016, criticism often highlighted such human rights violations; however, it rarely probed the root causes of tragedies in for-profit prisons and often blamed them on individual bad actors or isolated organizational issues (Ebert, Liao, and Estrada Reference Ebert, Liao and Estrada2019). In recent years, reportage is more likely to frame human rights problems as fundamental to the private prison industry. For example, an op-ed written by a professor of political science details lawsuits against GEO and CoreCivic, describing the labor arrangements of immigrant detainees as tantamount to modern-day slavery: “The plaintiffs have a strong case. Forced labor is constitutional so long as it is a condition of punishment….But in 1896, the Supreme Court held that ‘the order of deportation is not a punishment from crime’” (Stevens Reference Stevens2018, A.27). Another op-ed argued “…public centers, while still flawed, are more transparent [than private prisons]” and that “making a profit doesn’t just require keeping beds filled, it can often lead companies to skimp on services” (Loewenstein Reference Loewenstein2016, A.23). Critics in both timeframes countered a prominent neoliberal talking point that privatization saves the government and, therefore, taxpayers’ money. However, in the Trump era, they were not only more likely to do so (although the difference is not statistically significant; see table 1), they also were more likely to do so directly and forcefully. For example, the NYT editorial board wrote: “[o]ne would think a hard-nosed executive like Mr. Trump, who won the White House in part because of his assurances that he would run government more like a business, would be loath to reward a contractor that does a bad job while saving no money” (New York Times Editorial Board 2017).

These differences suggest that changes in the DOS have not only enabled supporters of privatized detention to engage in more direct frames, but they also have created openings for counter-narratives targeting the private prison industry. Previous research argued that threats to group interests uncover shared grievances that can activate a collective identity (Ray et al. Reference Ray, Brown, Fraistat and Summers2017; Zepeda-Millán Reference Zepeda-Millán2017). This collective identity, in turn, can manifest in counter-narratives used to mobilize against such threats (Van Dyke and Soule Reference Van Dyke and Soule2002). Although scholars generally rely on group threat theory to explain mobilization among the dominant group, additional research considers how threats influence collective identity formation and mobilization among communities of color (Cruz Nichols and Garibaldo Valdez Reference Nichols, Vanessa and Valdez2020; Sediqe Reference Sediqe2020). Trump’s racist language coupled with “color-blind” but more forthright statements from supporters of privatized immigration detention seems to have made grievances more apparent and, as a result, activated a more forceful collective response among opponents of the industry. Charges of human rights violations against the industry existed before the Trump era; however, in the absence of racialized rhetoric directed toward immigrants and outspoken support for the industry, these criticisms were relatively superficial, rarely framing problems as inherent to the industry. However, in the current era, arguments highlighting human rights violations of privatized immigration control are more common and multifaceted. In addition, amid changes in the DOS, critics have challenged the economic efficiency of for-profit detention more straightforwardly than in the previous era.