Private Prisons Cheer Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

Private prison companies saw an immediate and sustained stock bump when President Donald Trump was elected. And investors think things will keep getting better. An article on Seeking Alpha, the investment research site, speculated that GEO Group’s stock value may increase by 25 percent this year. “The basic rationale is that a Trump administration will emphasize private industry and law-and-order, both which will serve as significant macro tailwinds for the private prison industry over the next 4 years,” it said.

That emphasis began in earnest Wednesday with a series of executive orders signed by Trump to crackdown on illegal immigration. Besides announcing that he will triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and order the Department of Homeland Security to start building the wall (even though Mexico has yet to pony up the cash), Trump and his team also committed to locking up more immigrants who illegally cross the border. These measures are expensive; an analysis from the progressive Center for American Progress——a think tank linked to the Clinton campaign—estimated the whole project could cost more than $117 billion over the next 10 years.

And much of that money will go straight to private prison companies.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/25/private-prisons-cheer-trump-s-immigration-crackdown.html

Three evil words right there, "private prison companies."

Ben Reilly wrote:Three evil words right there, "private prison companies."

What gets me is how naive Trump supporters are in regards to the amount of money that Trump intends to spend on his flawed policies. I reckon when it starts to effect people in their pockets, you will see many Trump supporters jump ship. Also how on earth are they going to Police 2,000 miles of wall on the border? All you will see happen is extensive tunnels built to gain entry into the US. The key to tackle the problem of illegal immigration is to help eradicate Mexico's poverty.

My view (wildly unpopular and people look at me funny when I tell them) is we should turn the North American Free Trade Agreement into the North American Free Movement Agreement. That solves illegal immigration with the stroke of a pen, at least in terms of Mexico -- and let's face it, Trump's wall plan is not really an immigration policy but a big "fuck the Mexicans" statement.

Free North American movement would actually, deep down, be a dictionary-definition conservative or right-wing policy -- after all, it would take power from the government, not to mention be a boon to capitalism -- but it would not be a nativist, white-American identity movement policy, so it would never fly in Washington today.

Ben Reilly wrote:My view (wildly unpopular and people look at me funny when I tell them) is we should turn the North American Free Trade Agreement into the North American Free Movement Agreement. That solves illegal immigration with the stroke of a pen, at least in terms of Mexico -- and let's face it, Trump's wall plan is not really an immigration policy but a big "fuck the Mexicans" statement.

Free North American movement would actually, deep down, be a dictionary-definition conservative or right-wing policy -- after all, it would take power from the government, not to mention be a boon to capitalism -- but it would not be a nativist, white-American identity movement policy, so it would never fly in Washington today.

Interesting, though you will have to expand further, as on how it would work?
As I say, to me solving the issue, is more on actually tackling poverty in the first place. People rightly want to better their lives, in a country that has corruption, drug wars and a massive gap between the poor and rich, by moving away from what must be a nightmare.

You would just let Americans, Canadians and Mexicans move to and work in any of the three countries -- obviously there'd be a lot of "follow the jobs" action going on. Each country would remain sovereign and you'd have to be a citizen to vote in any of the three, but besides that it would be a sort of EU-style arrangement.

As it stands, it's ridiculous that you have to have a passport to visit Canada or Mexico when you live in the U.S. We're all strong allies, the U.S. and Canada have the same majority language, and the U.S. also has the second-most Spanish speakers in the world, ahead of Spain and behind Mexico.

Ben Reilly wrote:You would just let Americans, Canadians and Mexicans move to and work in any of the three countries -- obviously there'd be a lot of "follow the jobs" action going on. Each country would remain sovereign and you'd have to be a citizen to vote in any of the three, but besides that it would be a sort of EU-style arrangement.

As it stands, it's ridiculous that you have to have a passport to visit Canada or Mexico when you live in the U.S. We're all strong allies, the U.S. and Canada have the same majority language, and the U.S. also has the second-most Spanish speakers in the world, ahead of Spain and behind Mexico.

But you could have 20 million move from Mexico to the US in one year. Which the infrastructure of the US could not cope with. Its been one of the failings of the EU, that countries with lower GDP, have people flock to countries that will pay them better off. Which is effecting those countries that then lose their working young. As well as placing a strain on the nation that has to cope with the influx. To me its not viable Ben, when the problem is not being tackled at its root cause. The poverty levels in the country, where people are trying to escape from. To me your plan would only be viable if the nations had similar levels of pay structure, health care and wealth etc.

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:You would just let Americans, Canadians and Mexicans move to and work in any of the three countries -- obviously there'd be a lot of "follow the jobs" action going on. Each country would remain sovereign and you'd have to be a citizen to vote in any of the three, but besides that it would be a sort of EU-style arrangement.

As it stands, it's ridiculous that you have to have a passport to visit Canada or Mexico when you live in the U.S. We're all strong allies, the U.S. and Canada have the same majority language, and the U.S. also has the second-most Spanish speakers in the world, ahead of Spain and behind Mexico.

But you could have 20 million move from Mexico to the US in one year. Which the infrastructure of the US could not cope with. Its been one of the failings of the EU, that countries with lower GDP, have people flock to countries that will pay them better off. Which is effecting those countries that then lose their working young. As well as placing a strain on the nation that has to cope with the influx. To me its not viable Ben, when the problem is not being tackled at its root cause. The poverty levels in the country, where people are trying to escape from. To me your plan would only be viable if the nations had similar levels of pay structure, health care and wealth etc.

I certainly think there would be some initial strain, but the U.S. has problems that would also drive some to Mexico or Canada. For example, the cost of housing in the U.S. is skyrocketing due to gentrification. Mexico and Canada also have universal health care while the U.S. (of course) does not, and what we do have is about to be "repealed and replaced."

Many U.S. companies are moving operations to Mexico, which could make it easier to live there if there were freedom of movement. I'd move to Mexico in a heartbeat if I had a decent job waiting there, because the cost of living there is minuscule compared to either the U.S. or Canada.

To go further into that, Texas has a really good cost of living compared to most of the rest of the U.S. But compare Dallas to Monterrey, the most Americanized city in Mexico:

Consumer Prices in Dallas, TX are 113.59% higher than in Monterrey
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Dallas, TX are 154.06% higher than in Monterrey
Rent Prices in Dallas, TX are 287.51% higher than in Monterrey
Restaurant Prices in Dallas, TX are 150.48% higher than in Monterrey
Groceries Prices in Dallas, TX are 109.33% higher than in Monterrey
Local Purchasing Power in Dallas, TX is 73.72% higher than in Monterrey

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Mexico&country2=United+States&city1=Monterrey&city2=Dallas%2C+TX

And a very large percent of the Monterrey population speaks English!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


But you could have 20 million move from Mexico to the US in one year. Which the infrastructure of the US could not cope with. Its been one of the failings of the EU, that countries with lower GDP, have people flock to countries that will pay them better off. Which is effecting those countries that then lose their working young. As well as placing a strain on the nation that has to cope with the influx. To me its not viable Ben, when the problem is not being tackled at its root cause. The poverty levels in the country, where people are trying to escape from. To me your plan would only be viable if the nations had similar levels of pay structure, health care and wealth etc.

I certainly think there would be some initial strain, but the U.S. has problems that would also drive some to Mexico or Canada. For example, the cost of housing in the U.S. is skyrocketing due to gentrification. Mexico and Canada also have universal health care while the U.S. (of course) does not, and what we do have is about to be "repealed and replaced."

Many U.S. companies are moving operations to Mexico, which could make it easier to live there if there were freedom of movement. I'd move to Mexico in a heartbeat if I had a decent job waiting there, because the cost of living there is minuscule compared to either the U.S. or Canada.

To go further into that, Texas has a really good cost of living compared to most of the rest of the U.S. But compare Dallas to Monterrey, the most Americanized city in Mexico:

Consumer Prices in Dallas, TX are 113.59% higher than in Monterrey
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Dallas, TX are 154.06% higher than in Monterrey
Rent Prices in Dallas, TX are 287.51% higher than in Monterrey
Restaurant Prices in Dallas, TX are 150.48% higher than in Monterrey
Groceries Prices in Dallas, TX are 109.33% higher than in Monterrey
Local Purchasing Power in Dallas, TX is 73.72% higher than in Monterrey

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Mexico&country2=United+States&city1=Monterrey&city2=Dallas%2C+TX

And a very large percent of the Monterrey population speaks English!

I can see your point, but I doubt the numbers would be equivalent and its still failing to tackle the root cause of the problem, the poverty itself Ben. Again we have seen this policy in action with free movement across the EU and it has effected countries due to the differences in each nations economies and wealth. As I say, I can see it working if the nations had similar infrastructures on health, pay, housing, but at present I do not see it working. You also then have the added problem that we see in the EU, where then people of other nations get into the EU to gain entry into the UK. You would then have people flocking to Mexico, who would then abuse the free movement to gain entry into the US. This is already happening in the EU. A country needs to keep up with the influx of people via its infrastructure and at present that is not happening within the EU.

Well, you're always going to have people gaming the system -- you have to decide whether it's worth it at the end of the day. I for one think free movement could do a lot to alleviate poverty in Mexico. Just as EU membership did wonders for Poland and Romania.

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, you're always going to have people gaming the system -- you have to decide whether it's worth it at the end of the day. I for one think free movement could do a lot to alleviate poverty in Mexico. Just as EU membership did wonders for Poland and Romania.

But has it Ben? Most people that came from Poland have returned and the poverty levels in Romania are still a massive problem. Even in Poland the wags are way lower than the UK. When I speak to Romanian friends, its a mare they say back in their home countries, of which Romania has lost many of its youth for employment. You end up seeing skilled people drawn to where they get better pay. For example the Uk has its skilled people drawn to the US, Australia etc. Leaving the UK with a shortfall in skilled employees. Then the UK draws skilled people from poorer countries, then leaving those poorer nations without many skilled people. In the end, this cycle, hits the poorer nations worse, as they lose out and have a shortfall in skilled workers. This is why I say to tackle the problems, you have to do so at their root cause. I am all for free movement, but at present its not practical until the root cause of poverty in these countries is dealt with.

Anyway catch you later

I think Ben is right but these things take time and need to be embraced by the majority
the biggest issue with the EU
is that the majority did not embrace the opportunities and instead looked backwards with rose tinted glasses.
And proceeded to whine and whine and be obstructionist to progress, put no effort into making a new improved Europe.
Instead have lied to themselves that "their history will provide a future."