Skip navigation

Role of For-Profit Prisons in Shaping U.S. Detention & Deportation Policies, Governing Under the Influence, 2015

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
THE ROLE OF

FOR-PROFIT PRISON CORPORATIONS

IN SHAPING U. S . IMMIGR ANT DE TENTION & DEP ORTATION P OLIC IES

GOVERNING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
D EC EM B ER 201 5

Q

uerem Bequiri was getting dressed for school when
the doorbell rang. She was shocked to find a crowd
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers at the door. “The officers told my parents that
they had to leave with them and leave the baby behind,” says Querem, recalling how her mother cried. “We
watched through the front window as my parents were taken.” Querem’s mom was released with a tracking device.
Her dad was taken to the Elizabeth Detention Center in
New Jersey. Elizabeth is operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which earned a record $300 million

dollars from government contracts in 2013.1 For CCA, family separation is a matter of dollars and cents.
For-profit corporations, which invest heavily in campaign
contributions and lobbying, currently house nearly twothirds of all immigrant detainees in publicly funded detention centers.2 Expanding grounds for immigrant detention
is profitable for them—but imprisoning people to serve a
profit motive is clearly wrong. Policymakers need to be accountable to the public they represent, not to the wishes of
their campaign donors.

The connection between immigration policy and mass incarceration
Today, the United States has just 5 percent of the world’s
population, but nearly 25 percent of the world’s prisoners.3
Between 1970 and 2009, as a result of the “war on drugs,”
harsh sentencing policies, and rejection of restorative justice alternatives, the U.S. prison population grew by more
than 700 percent—outpacing both population growth and
crime rates.4 From 1990 to 2009, as mass incarceration accelerated, the private-prison industry grew by more than
1,600 percent.5

cluding unauthorized entry into the U.S. An unauthorized
entrant will be processed first through the criminal justice
system, where he or she will be convicted and serve a federal prison sentence, and then he or she will be turned over
to ICE custody and can be held in immigration detention,
serving a de facto second sentence.6
These lengthy, double sentences result in increased profits
for the private corporations that run criminal jails and prisons, and civil detention centers. Thousands of immigrants
are held in and shuffled through this complex network of
prisons throughout the U.S.

The relationship between private prison companies and
mass incarceration is symbiotic. Mass incarceration fuels
the proliferation of for-profit prisons while for-profit prison
corporations encourage policies that increase the number
of people behind bars. For this cycle of rapid expansion to
end, public policy must address both the push to incarcerate and the expansion of private prisons.

Adding to the increase in the number of people incarcerated
and detained each year, Congress imposes a detention bed
quota upon ICE that requires the agency to jail a predetermined number of immigrants—34,000 people on any given day—solely because of immigration status. This quota is
mandated annually by Congressional appropriations bills.
People whose detention counts toward this quota include
those who are seeking asylum or other forms of protection
after recent entry into the United States; undocumented people arrested for immigration status violations; and
green card holders or others held for deportation because of
previous criminal convictions for which they have already
served their time.

Private entities engaged in the detention industry have profited from changes to immigration policy that propel the
rate of incarceration. Entering the United States unlawfully
used to be treated as a civil offense (i.e., a crime that was
dealt with through our federal immigration system). Today, the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutes immigration-related offenses more than any other federal crime—as
of 2013, of all of the federal criminal cases filed by the DOJ,
nearly 40 percent were immigration-related offenses, in-

The immigration detention quota
Despite a decline in the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., the following language was inserted into
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act of 2010 concerning the ICE detention budget: “…
funding made available under this heading shall maintain
a level of not less than 33,400 detention beds.”7 Since that
time the detention bed quota has appeared in every annual
DHS appropriations bill.

tention beds.9 Nine of the 10 largest ICE detention centers
are now run on a for-profit basis.10 It costs taxpayers close
to $2 billion to maintain this arbitrary, ineffective, and inhumane system.11
This policy is not dictated by public interest or “homeland
security” needs so much as the demands of private prison
corporations. Officials at CCA12 and the GEO Group13—the
nation’s two largest private prison operators—openly admit that reforms leading to fewer incarcerated immigrants
would harm their business plans. As things stand now, the
criminalization of immigrants has contributed to a 13 percent rise in the number of immigrants housed in privately
operated prisons since the quota was instituted.14

This directive was interpreted by ICE as a mandate to fill
33,400 (increased in 2013 to 34,000) detention beds on a
daily basis, which translates into approximately half a million individuals detained every year.8 Money appropriated
for this quota lines the pockets of private prison corporations, which are now contracted for 62 percent of ICE de-2-

Criminal Alien Requirement (CAR) prisons
According to a recent Fusion investigation, “without a single vote in Congress, officials across three administrations:
created a new classification of federal prisons only for immigrants; decided that private companies would run the facilities; and filled them by changing immigration enforcement
practices.”15 One-hundred percent of these facilities, known
as “Criminal Alien Requirement” (CAR) prisons, are operated by private corporations.16 An ACLU report states that
“the CAR prisons are unusual in three respects: They are
some of the only federal prisons operated by for-profit companies instead of being run as federal institutions by the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP); they house exclusively non-citizens; and they are low-custody institutions with

would not have been incarcerated just ten years ago, when
these types of immigration-related offenses were treated as
civil, not criminal, cases.19
Investigations by ACLU, Fusion, Grassroots Leadership,
Justice Strategies, and other organizations have revealed a
host of problems within CAR prisons. The people held in
these prisons face debilitating abuse and obstacles to family contact, and they lack access to medical care. Furthermore, the contracts issued by GEO and CCA each require a
minimum of 10 percent of the contract beds to be solitary
confinement cells,20 which place immigrants in an environment that has been demonstrated to cause immense psychological harm. 21

lesser security requirements than the medium and maximum-security institutions run directly by the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP).”17 Currently, there are 13 CAR prisons in
the U.S., five of which are in Texas.18 Those prisons are filled
with people—approximately 23,000 in all—most of whom

Also of concern is the lack of transparency surrounding
private prisons. Unlike public facilities that are subject to
state and federal open records laws such as the Freedom of
Information Act, private prisons are permitted to operate in
secrecy, away from the light of public scrutiny.

Incarcerating immigrants: A revenue source for private prison
corporations
For-profit prison corporations see enormous financial
growth when federal policies they encourage result in
heightened criminalization of immigrants. Grassroots
Leadership reports that together, GEO and CCA account
for about 72 percent of the detention beds privately contracted for by ICE.22
•	

According to Grassroots Leadership, “Both companies
have significantly augmented their profits since the
implementation of the quota, CCA from $133,373,000
in 2007 to $195,022,000 in 2014. GEO experienced an
even more dramatic profit increase from $41,845,000 in
2007 to $143,840,000 in 2014, a 244 percent increase.”23

-3-

•	

Following the implementation of the detention quota,
CCA and GEO expanded the share of all immigrant detention that they operate from 37 percent in 2010 to 45
percent in 2014.24

•	

In its 2013 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
filing, GEO stated, “(i)mmigration reform laws which
are currently a focus for legislators and politicians at
the federal, state and local level also could materially
adversely impact us.”25

•	

CCA also acknowledges the need to expand detentions:
“[o]ur growth is generally dependent upon our ability
to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new
correctional and detention facilities.”26

Lobbying by for-profit corporations seeking to influence immigration
policies
•	

Since 2003, CCA and GEO have spent a combined total
of over $32 million lobbying the federal government—
including lobbying DHS, which oversees federal contracts for immigration detention centers.27

•	

In 2013, CCA denied lobbying on “sentencing or detention enforcement legislation” and said that it “will not
take a position on or advocate for or against any specific immigration reform legislation nor will [its] government relations team on [its] behalf.”28 However, in 2012,
CCA had hired a lobbying firm to begin monitoring
immigration policy issues, as evidenced by their Senate
lobby expense disclosures.29

-4-

•	

GEO has publicly said that it “has never directly or indirectly lobbied to influence immigration policy. [It has]
not discussed any immigration reform related matters
with any members of Congress, and [it] will not participate in the current immigration reform debate.”30 But
its 2013 lobbying disclosures reveal that GEO hired a
firm to lobby Congress on “issues related to comprehensive immigration reform.”31

•	

According to the Center for American Progress, CCA
had 25 lobbyists in Congress when the detention quota
was passed in 2009.32

The revolving door between public administration and private prison
companies
The increased profits that go to private prison corporations
when more people get incarcerated for immigration violations are passed on to company shareholders and executives. Leadership positions at for-profit prison corporations
are much more lucrative than those in government. The
ACLU reports that “According to the investment research
firm Morningstar, the executive officers of CCA and GEO
together received roughly $19 million in compensation in
2012.”33 According to Fusion’s “Shadow prisons” report,

three of the last four directors of the federal Bureau of Prisons joined the boards of large private prison corporations
after leaving office.34 In addition, Fusion reports that “many
other government officials at the Department of Justice and
Department of Homeland Security who were in charge
when Operation Streamline35 was implemented and immigrant prisons were built now work in the private prison
industry.”36

NAME

GOVERNMENT ►

BUSINESS ►

Harley G. Lapin

Director of BOP (2004—11)
Salary: $180,000 ►

Executive VP & Chief Corrections
Officer CCA (2011—present)
Salary: $1,514,706

J.Michael Quinlan

Director of BOP (1987—92) ►

Former Senior Vice President and
CEO of CCA (1992—present)

Norman A. Carlson

Director of BOP (1970—87) ►

Director of GEO Group (1994—3014),
formerly Wackenhut

Phillip Perry

Associate Attorney General at DOJ
(2002—05) ►

Lobbyist for CCA, Partner at Latham
& Watkins (2004—05) ►

Thurgood Marshall Jr. Clinton Administration (1992—2000),
titles include Cabinet Secretary
to President Clinton, Director of
Legislative Affairs, Deputy Counsel
to VP Al Gore ►

Director of CCA (2002—present)

Stacia A. Hylton

Attorney General’s Federation
Detention Trustee (2004—10) ►

Consultant for GEO Group (2010) ►

Julia Myers Wood

Asst. Secretary DHS, Head of ICE
(2006—08) ►

Director of GEO Group (2014—present)

Source: Shadow Prisons, Fusion

-5-

GOVERNMENT

General Counsel DHS (2005—07)

Director of US Marshals Service
(2010—present)

Campaign contributions by for-profit prison corporations
Private prison corporations seek influence over public policy through campaign contributions to key legislators in
the immigration reform debate. The chart below details the
total contributions directly from GEO and CCA to these

politicians between roughly 1989 to the second quarter of
2014. It is important to note that this is not an exhaustive
list because federal law exempts certain types of campaign
contributions from disclosure.

U.S. GOVERNORS

U.S. REPRESENTATIVES

U.S. SENATORS

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Republican leader on immigration reform with significant shifts in stance, $62,300
supports repealing Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA); presidential candidate
(from GEO)37
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), introduced legislation and amendments appropriating funds to expand
immigrant detention through Operation Streamline, and actively promotes the program.

$67,396
(from CCA and GEO)38

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), an author of the “border surge” amendment to the Senate comprehensive
immigration bill.

$51,450
(from CCA)39

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), a leader in anti-immigrant policies, including expanding immigration
detention facilities.

$71,450
(from CCA)40

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), member of the Senate “Gang of 8” who voted for an amendment
that would increase prosecution of undocumented immigrants crossing the southern border;
presidential candidate.

$12,864
(CCA and GEO)41

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH-8), former Speaker of the House, who co-sponsored legislation
increasing immigrant detentions.

$44,000
(from CCA42 and GEO)43

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY-5), chairs the House Appropriations Committee and co-sponsored
legislation that would result in undocumented workers being subjected to detention.

$67,400
(CCA and GEO)44

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX-28), proposed “voluntary removal” legislation making it easier to deport
children outside of the legal process; represents a district in which GEO-operated Karnes County
Residential Center is located and named Karnes as a model facility - yet female detainees say
sexual abuse is rampant at the center.

$38,500
(from CCA and GEO)45

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN-7), introduced a bill permitting local law enforcement to detain
undocumented immigrants, which would increase detentions, and brought forth an amendment
ending temporary legal status for immigrant youth.

$23,600
(from CCA)46

Rep. John Carter (R-TX-31), chair of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee,
$21,000
briefly participated in the House “Gang of 8” and co-sponsored a bill allowing local law enforcement (from CCA and GEO)47
to detain undocumented immigrants.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21), sponsored legislation increasing immigrant detention and compared
immigrant detention to “recess.”

$6,500
(from CCA)48

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), under his stewardship as former Governor, Texas seized on the Secure
Communities Program to funnel thousands of immigrants into detention facilities; opposed release
of thousands of immigrants in 2013; two-time former presidential candidate.

$2,000
(from CCA and GEO)49

Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA), governor of a state with both GEO and CCA operated immigration
detention centers. In 2012, he vetoed the TRUST Act—a bill that would have curbed the expansion
of immigrant detentions in California. In 2013, he signed an amended version of the bill that would
result in slowing but continuing the expansion of immigrant detention, a move that is in contrast to
the jurisdictions in his state that refuse to transfer inmates into immigrant detention.

$40,900
(from CCA and GEO)50

-6-

Recommendations
In the current political context, policymakers have excellent opportunities to rethink policies that fuel mass incarceration and consider alternatives that are more humane,
more sustainable, and more effective. Immigration policy is
a great place to start.

tected “trade secrets” perpetuate ill treatment of detainees and undermine accountability. In addition, no
one should be subjected to indefinite detention, solitary
confinement, denial of access to phones and lawyers,
inadequate medical treatment, and other deplorable
conditions of confinement.

•	

The immigrant detention quota must be eliminated,
and the heavy influence of the for-profit prison industry
over our public policy-making process must end.

•	

Community-based alternatives provided by trusted
nonprofit community organizations should be used instead of retributive justice mechanisms or services provided by profit-motivated corporations. Studies51 show
such alternatives to be effective and more cost-efficient.

Security does not come from maximizing prison populations or criminalizing migrants. Our nation’s wellbeing
rests in solutions that address the root causes of insecurity, inequality, and migration with strategies that reunite
families, build human security, and prize human dignity.
To learn more about AFSC’s recommendations for A New
Path: Toward Humane Immigration Policy, visit www.afsc.
org/newpath.

•	

Detention facility operators need to be held accountable
and their practices made transparent to prevent human
rights abuses. For example, private prisons should be
held to the same disclosure laws as public facilities.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) loopholes utilized
by for-profit entities must be closed. Claims by these
corporations that complying with FOIA requests about
detention center conditions would result in airing pro-

The American Friends Service Committee is shining a spotlight on the excessive influence of powerful corporations in
shaping policies that undermine the public good through
a strategic education and action project called Governing
Under the Influence. The project is initially focusing in
Iowa and New Hampshire, states that get the lion’s share
of attention from presidential candidates in the presidential
nominating process.

Glossary
ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement
DHS: Department Of Homeland Security
DOJ: Department of Justice
CCA: Corrections Corporation of America
BOP: Bureau of Prisons
CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CAR: Criminal Alien Requirement

-7-

Sources
CCA Investor Relations Earnings News Releases. (2014). CCA announces
2013 fourth quarter financial results. Retrieved from http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=117983&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1899619

20	 Fusion. (2015, February). Shadow Prisons. Retrieved from http://interac-

2	

Gruberg, Sharita. (2014, May). Detention means big money for
for-profit prisons. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/
issues/immigration/news/2014/05/09/89397/infographic-detention-means-big-money-for-for-profit-prisons/

to your mind? Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
criminal-justice/locked-up-in-america/what-does-solitary-confinementdo-to-your-mind/

3	

American Civil Liberties Union. (2015, July 2). The prison crisis. Retrieved
from https://www.aclu.org/prison-crisis

4	

The Sentencing Project. (2011, March). The expanding federal prison
population. Retrieved from http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_FederalPrisonFactsheet_March20112.pdf

1	

tive.fusion.net/shadow-prisons

21	 Breslow, Jason M. (2014, April 22). What does solitary confinement do

22	 Carson, B. and Diaz, E. (2015, April). Payoff: How Congress ensures pri-

vate prison profit with an immigrant detention quota. Chart 1F. Retrieved
from http://grassrootsleadership.org/reports/payoff-how-congress-ensures-private-prison-profit-immigrant-detention-quota

23	 Carson, B. and Diaz, E. (2015, April). Payoff: How Congress ensures pri-

vate prison profit with an immigrant detention quota. Chart 1F. Retrieved
from http://grassrootsleadership.org/reports/payoff-how-congress-ensures-private-prison-profit-immigrant-detention-quota

5	

American Civil Liberties Union. (2011, November). Banking on bondage:
Private prisons and mass incarceration. Retrieved from https://www.
aclu.org/banking-bondage-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration

24	 Carson, B. and Diaz, E. (2015, April). Payoff: How Congress ensures

6	

Fiscal Year 2013 United States Attorney’s Annual Statistical Report. (FY
2013). (Graph illustration Criminal Chart 2.2 – Criminal Cases Filed by
Program Category Fiscal Year 2013). Retrieved from http://www.justice.
gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2014/09/22/13statrpt.pdf

25	 GEO Group. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Filing, Form 10-K.

7	

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010. Public
Law 111–83. (2009, Oct. 28). Government Printing Office. Retrieved
from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ83/pdf/PLAW111publ83.pdf

26	 Corrections Corporation of America - Form 424B4. Prospectus supple-

8	

American Immigration Lawyers Association. (2014, April 2). AILA’s take
on the detention bed quota. Retrieved from http://www.aila.org/content/
default.aspx?docid=47205

9	

Carson, B. and Diaz, E. (2015, April). Payoff: How Congress ensures private prison profit with an immigrant detention quota. Chart 1E. Retrieved
from http://grassrootsleadership.org/reports/payoff-how-congress-ensures-private-prison-profit-immigrant-detention-quota

private prison profit with an immigrant detention quota. Retrieved from
http://grassrootsleadership.org /reports/payoff-how-congress-ensures-private-prison-profit-immigrant-detention-quota
For the year ending December 31, 2012. Page 30. Retrieved from http://
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923796/000119312513087892/
d493925d10k.htm#tx493923

ment to prospectus dated April 30, 2003. (P. S-13) Retrieved from http://
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000095014403006125/
g81690b4e424b4.htm

27	 Parker, C., Greene, J., Libal, B. & Mazón, A. (2014, October). For-profit

family detention: Meet the private prison corporations making millions
by locking up refugee families. Retrieved from http://grassrootsleadership.org/reports/profit-family-detention-meet-private-prison-corporations-making-millions-locking-refugee#6

10	 Carson, B. and Diaz, E. (2015, April). Payoff: How Congress ensures pri-

28	 Fang, L. (2013, February 27). How private prisons game the immigra-

vate prison profit with an immigrant detention quota. Chart 1E. Retrieved
from http://grassrootsleadership.org/reports/payoff-how-congress-ensures-private-prison-profit-immigrant-detention-quota

tion system. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/how-private-prisons-game-immigration-system/

29	 Fang, L. (2013, February 27). How private prisons game the immigra-

11	 Detention Watch Network. [Infographic #endthequota, drawing on 2012

tion system. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/how-private-prisons-game-immigration-system/

and 2013 resources from National Immigration Forum, DHS, and Detention Watch Network]. Retrieved from http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/detentionwatchnetwork.org/files/final_infograph_11_
by_17_jpdf.pdf

30	 Fang, L. (2013, June 4). Disclosure shows private prison company misled

on immigration lobbying. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/blog/174628/disclosure-shows-private-prison-company-misled-immigration-lobbying#axzz2WbOVhBXA

12	 Corrections Corporation of America. United States Securities and Ex-

change Commission Filing, Form 10-K. For the year ending December 31, 2014. Page 31. Retrieved from http://www.sec.gov/Archives/
edgar/data/1070985/000119312515061839/d853180d10k.htm#tx853180_5

31	 Fang, L. (2013, June 4). Disclosure shows private prison company misled

on immigration lobbying. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/blog/174628/disclosure-shows-private-prison-company-misled-immigration-lobbying#axzz2WbOVhBXA

13	 GEO

Group. United States Securities and Exchange Commission Filing, Form 10-K. For the year ending December 31, 2012.
Page 30. Retrieved from http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/
d a t a / 9 2 3 7 9 6 / 0 0 0 1 1 9 3 1 2 5 1 3 0 8 7 8 9 2 /d 4 9 3 9 2 5 d 1 0 k . h t m#tx493925_3

32	 Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.american-

progress.org/issues/immigration/news/2014/05/09/89397/infographic-detention-means-big-money-for-for-profit-prisons/.

33	 American Civil Liberties Union. (2014, June). Warehoused and forgotten:

14	 Carson, B. and Diaz, E. (2015, April). Payoff: How Congress ensures pri-

Immigrants trapped in our shadow private prison system. Pages 17-18.
Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/060614-aclu-car-reportonline.pdf

vate prison profit with an immigrant detention quota. Chart 1A. Retrieved
from http://grassrootsleadership.org/reports/payoff-how-congress-ensures-private-prison-profit-immigrant-detention-quota

34	 Costantini, C. & Rivas, J. (2015, February). Shadow Prisons. Retrieved

15	 Costantini, C. & Rivas, J. (2015, February). Shadow Prisons. Retrieved

from http://interactive.fusion.net/shadow-prisons

from http://interactive.fusion.net/shadow-prisons

35	 “Operation Streamline” is a federal program that mandates criminal

16	 Libel, Bob. (2015, February 22). Seven things to know about uprising at

prosecution of most undocumented immigrants crossing certain sections of the southern border.

Texas private prisons for immigrants. Retrieved from http://grassrootsleadership.org/blog/2015/02/seven-things-know-about-uprising-texas-private-prison-immigrants

36	 Costantini, C. & Rivas, J. (2015, February). Shadow Prisons. Retrieved

from http://interactive.fusion.net/shadow-prisons

17	 American Civil Liberties Union. (2014, June). Warehoused and forgotten:

37	 Influence Explorer. GEO Group: Campaign finance. Retrieved on Sep-

Immigrants trapped in our shadow private prison system. Retrieved from
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/060614-aclu-car-reportonline.pdf

tember 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05 (Source no longer
available.)

18	 Fusion. (2015, February). Shadow Prisons. Retrieved from http://interac-

38	 Influence Explorer. Corrections Corporation of America. Retrieved on

tive.fusion.net/shadow-prisons

September 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
corrections-corp-of-america/46a43aff0a6743c59fbebd588e8ee743
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05 (Source no longer available.)

19	 American Civil Liberties Union. Immigration reform should eliminate Op-

eration Streamline. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/
operation_streamline_issue_brief.pdf

-8-

39	 Influence Explorer. Corrections Corporation of America. Retrieved on

46	 Influence Explorer. Corrections Corporation of America. Retrieved on

40	 Influence Explorer. Corrections Corporation of America. Retrieved on

47	 Influence Explorer. Corrections Corporation of America. Retrieved on

September 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
corrections-corp-of-america/46a43aff0a6743c59fbebd588e8ee743
(Source no longer available.)

September 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
corrections-corp-of-america/46a43aff0a6743c59fbebd588e8ee743
(Source no longer available.)

September 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
corrections-corp-of-america/46a43aff0a6743c59fbebd588e8ee743
(Source no longer available.)

September 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
corrections-corp-of-america/46a43aff0a6743c59fbebd588e8ee743
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05 (Source no longer available.)

41	 Influence Explorer. Corrections Corporation of America. Retrieved on

September 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
corrections-corp-of-america/46a43aff0a6743c59fbebd588e8ee743
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05 (Source no longer available.)

48	 Influence Explorer. Corrections Corporation of America. Retrieved on

42	 Influence Explorer. Corrections Corporation of America. ($9,000) Re-

49	 Influence Explorer. Corrections Corporation of America. Retrieved on

September 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
corrections-corp-of-america/46a43aff0a6743c59fbebd588e8ee743
(Source no longer available.)

trieved on Sept 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
corrections-corp-of-america/46a43aff0a6743c59fbebd588e8ee743
(Source no longer available.)

September 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
corrections-corp-of-america/46a43aff0a6743c59fbebd588e8ee743
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05 (Source no longer available.)

43	 Influence Explorer. GEO Group. Retrieved on September 17, 2015 from

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05 (Source no longer available.)

50	 Influence Explorer. Corrections Corporation of America. Retrieved on

September 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
corrections-corp-of-america/46a43aff0a6743c59fbebd588e8ee743
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05 (Source no longer available.)

44	 Influence Explorer. Corrections Corporation of America. Retrieved on

September 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
corrections-corp-of-america/46a43aff0a6743c59fbebd588e8ee743
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05 (Source no longer available.)

51	 Root, O. Web. (2000, April 30). The appearance assistance program:

Alternative to detention for non-citizens in U.S. immigration removal
proceedings. Retrieved from http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/aap_speech.pdf

45	 Influence Explorer. Corrections Corporation of America. Retrieved on

September 17, 2015 from http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/
corrections-corp-of-america/46a43aff0a6743c59fbebd588e8ee743
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05 (Source no longer available.)

afsc.org
1501 Cherry St.
Philadelphia, PA 19102
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)
is a Quaker organization that promotes lasting
peace with justice, as a practical expression of
faith in action. Drawing on continuing spiritual
insights and working with people of many
backgrounds, we nurture the seeds of change
and respect for human life that transform social
relations and systems.

-9-

 

 

PLN Subscribe Now Ad
Advertise Here 4th Ad
The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side