Across the United States, long-shuttered prisons — some with histories of abuse, neglect, and civil rights violations — are being quietly reopened to serve as new detention centers for immigrants under the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). What had once been facilities closed by local authorities for failing basic standards are now being repurposed amid a historic surge in immigration enforcement.
The Trump administration has dramatically expanded immigration detention as part of its effort to accelerate deportations and “secure the border,” creating a demand for tens of thousands of additional beds beyond the federal government’s existing infrastructure. To meet that demand, ICE has reportedly turned to private prison companies to reactivate previously inactive facilities that had been mothballed — despite troubling past records.
According to El País, facilities such as the North Lake Correctional Facility in Michigan and the Midwest Regional Reception Center (MRRC) in Kansas have been reopened or are being pressed into service to house migrants, with private operators CoreCivic and GEO Group securing no-bid federal contracts to run them. Those companies have histories of civil rights complaints and oversight failures, raising alarms among activists and human rights groups who say the expansion risks repeating past abuses under a new designation. EL PAÍS English
Critics note that these facilities were closed for reasons including systemic understaffing, dangerous conditions, and, in some cases, documented violence and neglect — conditions that civil liberties organizations fear will resurface once inmates are again confined behind their walls. El País reports that reopening such centers has boosted stocks for CoreCivic and GEO Group even as advocacy groups warn that “cashing in” on immigrant detention escalates a system already under heavy scrutiny.
Local Governments Left in the Dark
In some communities, local officials say they have little information about whether or how these closed prisons might be repurposed. In Colorado, KUNC reported that mayors and county administrators in several towns learned only through news coverage that ICE had expressed interest in reopening shuttered private prisons to detain immigrants. Contracts with private operators, they said, would not require local approval, leaving communities unsure about what might come.
Officials in towns like Walsenburg and Hudson noted they had no direct notice of federal plans, and that private prison companies had approached ICE about potential contracts, but the details remained unclear. In some instances, companies had begun advertising for detention staff positions contingent on facilities being revived — a sign that momentum toward reopening is building even without clear community buy-in.
A Broader Pattern of Expansion
This push to reopen old facilities fits into a larger federal strategy of rapidly expanding detention capacity. ICE has historically relied on private prison companies to provide space beyond what the government operates directly, but the sheer scale of reopened sites and the speed with which they are being repurposed have alarmed advocates. Public records and reporting suggest that ICE already detains most immigrants in facilities run by for-profit contractors with longstanding criticisms for poor treatment and oversight, according to the Brennan Center for Justice and other watchdog organizations.
Civil liberties groups argue that rather than investing in humane alternatives to detention or addressing root causes of migration, the federal government is doubling down on a punitive model that echoes the broader U.S. carceral system. The specter of reopening prisons that had been closed due to poor conditions or community opposition raises questions about whether lessons from past failures have been learned — or simply ignored in the rush to expand capacity.
Human Rights and Policy Implications
With immigration arrests and detention numbers far outpacing historical norms, reopening old prisons signals a shift toward scaling up enforcement infrastructure at a time of sharp debate over immigration policy. Critics worry that the human cost of detention — including inadequate medical care, isolation, and limited oversight — will be repeated if new safeguards are not implemented. Meanwhile, many communities remain largely unaware of how federal decisions will affect local resources and social dynamics.
At the core of the controversy lies a broader question about American values and civil liberties: can a system that expands detention capacity without robust accountability, transparency, and respect for human dignity truly claim to protect the rule of law?
In the process of reopening these shuttered prisons for ICE use, some fear the answer is slipping further away.
