‘Getting Tough’, All Over Again

In spite of what you’ve heard before, there isn’t any one ‘third rail’ in politics. If social security reform is the partisan lighting rod du jour, then immigration reform is a close second. Moreover, if Tom Barry’s piece in the November issue of the Review is any indication, it may well be gaining. Writing about a little-known area of law he calls ‘criminal-immigration’ whereby immigrants – legal and otherwise, convicted of non-violent crimes and possessing legal family members in the US – are sentenced to jail time in so-called ‘public-private prisons’ before their inevitable deportation. Part of a ‘get tough on crime’ mantra coming out of the Bush administration – and one the Obama White House has been reluctant to modify in the midst of an already thorny healthcare battle – these newly rebranded ‘criminal-aliens’ face sentences lasting anywhere from a few days to several years before deportation, thus effectively punishing offenders twice for the same crime. So much for the Fifth Amendment.

Immigrants, of course, aren’t the only victims in this story. Law enforcement has been hard-pressed to keep up with the growing influx of ‘criminal-aliens’ since the 1980s. In its effort to reign-in the overflow, the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice have turned to private firms, at the expense of struggling rural towns. These corporations have come under fire in recent days with the unfolding story of Michael Hinton – an ex-con caught defrauding the small Montana town of Hardin in an alleged scheme to operate its local prison. Sordid as it is, his story is quite common. Ostensibly sanctioned by law enforcement officials, these private firms have sought out small, impoverished, predominantly South Western towns for which the building of prisons would guarantee jobs and steady incomes. Promising greater and greater efficiency at a minimum of the cost necessarily comes at the expense of something else – such ‘nonessential’ services as in-house medical and psychological staff. All this begs the question, at what point do civic and humanitarian concerns outweigh efficiency arguments? More important still, how does a society reconcile its public duty to uphold and enforce the law – a task most of us agree that society alone can exercise – against an increasingly privatized corrections industry?

The Obama administration continues to tread lightly – holding their predecessor’s line under the guise of preserving ‘law and order.’ Perhaps that’s a rationale which voters are willing to accept for the moment, but all that clamoring for change back during the campaign will come back to haunt the President and his congressional allies in 2012 unless they actually follow through. In preparation for the coming immigration debate, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano spoke on Friday, November 13th at the Center for American Progress on the issue of reform, broadly defined. While it’s encouraging to see some movement on this front, any part of a workable solution will require a reassessment of the draconian public-private prison scheme. Talk only goes so far before voters begin to wonder whether they’ve backed the wrong horse. Ball’s in your court, Mr. President.