Behind Bars: Unveiling the Overlapping of Detention Centers and Prisons

Introduction

Detention Centers. Are we still pretending these places are simply holding facilities—or does it make more sense to call them prisons in disguise? Families are consistently being torn apart, and futures remain uncertain. Both prisons and detention centers are legally defined as “holding facilities,” yet the populations held in them face vastly different circumstances. Prisons confine individuals who have broken the law and are serving criminal sentences. In contrast, detention centers are meant for civil confinement—housing individuals awaiting immigration proceedings, deportation, or those deemed a threat to the public. Although detention centers and prisons are intended for different populations and serve different purposes, the economic incentives, treatment of detainees, and constitutional concerns surrounding them reveal significant overlap—especially when viewed through the lens of crimmigration.

Theory of Crimmigration

Detention centers are treating individuals as if they are prisoners who have committed crimes. The term crimmigration stems from Juliet Stumpf’s 2006 definition as the “convergence of immigration law with criminal law, through the expansion of policing enforcement inside the country and its borders.”  Historically, immigration laws have been shaped by the ideology that immigrants are criminals and threats to national security. Examples include Executive Order 9066, the McCarran-Walter Act, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and many others. Politicizing this topic has increasingly become common, often used as a central theme in political campaigns. “Migrant criminals,” “illegal monster,” “killers,” “gang members,” and “poisoning our country” are just a few quotes from current president Donald J. Trump. Historical precedents, along with political rhetoric, have arguably increased the similarities in the treatment of detainees and criminals. Recent statistics show there are over 200 detention centers in the United States, and ICE has established a mandated minimum of 34,000 beds per day.

Economic Costs and Profit Motives

Behind both detention centers and prisons, private companies are making tremendous profits. Currently, 8% of prisons, federal and state, are privately owned, compared to over 90% of privately-run immigrant detention centers. However, the key point to note is that private prison companies often oversee mass immigration detention systems. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “Private prison corporations, like the GEO Group, CoreCivic, LaSalle Corrections, and the Management Training Corporation, have pocketed billions from ICE detention contracts in the past two decades.” If these large private companies are pocketing billions, why are welfare conditions and the effects on individuals so traumatic? It can be inferred that these billion-dollar companies are focused solely on profit, not on the well-being of individuals in these facilities. This is further supported by research showing that private detention centers are not cheaper and commit as many abuses as publicly owned centers.

Social and Human Costs

Image Source: Freedom for Immigrants

What are the human costs individuals must endure before these billion dollar corporations recognize the need for greater access to mental health resources, adequate healthcare, and legal services to address verbal and physical abuse? It has been proven that both private and public prisons profit significantly by operating below the funding they receive from taxpayers. Not only are these large corporations not held accountable for the lack of services in these facilities, but they also disproportionately target historically marginalized communities. According to the organization Freedom for Immigrants, “Private prison corporations' perverse incentive to profit off of the prolonged imprisonment of Black, brown, and Indigenous immigrants is foundational to the immigration detention system.” The detention center system is built on deeply rooted racism and a severe lack of resources. This is evident in the serious conditions many detainees develop—such as PTSD, depression, and anxiety—resulting from the dehumanizing experiences inside these facilities.

Constitutional and Legal Implications

A major issue when examining prisons and detention centers is the constitutionality of their conditions and the rights afforded to prisoners and detainees. Human rights violations are a constant reality in detention centers. Since 2003, approximately 200 deaths have been reported in U.S. immigration detention centers, yet few have received public attention. This can be compared to statistics from 2014 through 2021, during which 187 people died by suicide, 89 by homicide, and 56 from “accidental” causes inside U.S. prisons. These two sets of statistics alone highlight the serious mental and physical toll experienced by individuals in both detention centers and prisons. Detention centers consistently fail to meet ICE guidelines, and although whistleblower testimonies have exposed these failures, little meaningful action has been taken in response.

Conclusion

Despite their different intended purposes, immigration detention centers and prisons are disturbingly similar—marked by dehumanization, lack of medical and emotional support, and limited legal rights. Crimmigration, the theory that immigration and criminal law have merged under the assumption that immigrants are inherently criminal, is clearly prevalent in current political discourse and systemic racism. The environment within immigration detention centers has repeatedly shown a lack of accountability and oversight, with numerous human rights violations leading to preventable deaths. Where do we go from here when powerful corporations consistently silence these concerns?

Image Source: Washington Post