Communications Panel Urges More Transparency in Messaging About ICE Facilities
To many Americans, ICE detention centers represent a bold and decisive effort to address illegal immigration and enhance public safety.
To others, they symbolize a country that has lost its moral compass by housing individuals they believe are being held in unacceptable conditions.
Many Americans, perhaps the majority, fall somewhere in the middle and are uncertain what to believe.
For both advocates and critics, a key question is how the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the ICE detention centers it operates can communicate more effectively with those who are skeptical of the facilities or, conversely, strengthen support among those who favor reform or abolition.
To gather perspectives on the issue, CommPRO asked a panel of communications professionals.
"If the administration would like more public and political support for the detention centers, then it must address concerns about conditions inside the facilities," says Robert McClain, a marketing coordinator with Rivers Casino outside Chicago.
Noting that human rights advocates have consistently criticized the centers, McClain says it would be in the administration's interest to clearly explain who is being housed in the facilities, why they are being detained and how they are treated while there.
As for Democrats, he suggests they could communicate more effectively about detention centers by focusing less on anger and more on solutions.
"Right now, much of their messaging focuses on humanitarian concerns and criticism of the facilities, which resonates with some audiences but may not fully address concerns many Americans have about border security," he says.
According to McClain, many Americans want to feel safe, and emphasizing only alleged problems within the facilities may not be enough to persuade those audiences.
"A stronger communication strategy would acknowledge that people want secure borders and effective law enforcement while also protecting human rights," he says. "Democrats and other critics should make their alternatives clear so people understand that opposing detention centers does not necessarily mean opposing immigration enforcement altogether."
Delores J. Brooks, a longtime Chicago-based writer and marketing professional, agrees that DHS must address the negative headlines surrounding detention centers if it hopes to build broader public support.
"These facilities face a number of challenges, many of which can and should be addressed immediately," she argues, suggesting several reforms.
"Basic but humane conditions must be maintained at all facilities," Brooks says. "They should be kept clean, with sanitary bathrooms available to all. Furthermore, no one should be subjected to physical or verbal abuse."
She adds that detainees should be allowed family visits on a scheduled and publicly communicated basis, have access to legal information and the ability to retain counsel if desired, and have access to medical and psychological services.
Brooks also believes that members of Congress, congressional staff and other authorized officials should be permitted to visit detention centers, with dates and times coordinated in advance by all parties.
Ellen Ferrera, a contributing writer for the Moultrie County (IL) News-Progress and founder and past president of the Illinois Association of Non-Profits, also believes DHS has been ineffective in making the case for the facilities.
"I believe they will remain unpopular with many Americans," she says, "but DHS has done little to improve perceptions through greater transparency, open dialogue and routine inspections of the facilities."
Ferrera points to another concern: reports that DHS has acquired large warehouse properties that may be converted into detention facilities capable of housing thousands of people.
"A troubling question is whether more facilities are being acquired than are currently needed," she says.
Ferrera also raises concerns about acquisition costs and renovation expenses associated with such projects.
"Worse, the purchase price does not include the costs of renovating and furnishing facilities capable of housing thousands of people," she says.
Pointing to media reports and local opposition in some communities, Ferrera says residents have expressed concerns not only about detainee treatment but also about the potential impact of large facilities on local resources.
"If DHS hopes to gain support for new detention centers, it must be transparent and clearly explain the rationale, projected costs and anticipated community impact of the facilities it wants to open," she says.
Offering a Gen Z perspective is Marina Bradley, an honors student at Columbia College Chicago and a Montana native.
"As someone who receives a lot of mail and sees a lot of advertising, I find that messaging around political issues often focuses on attacking the other side," she says.
Bradley believes that campaigns by both advocates and critics of detention centers should focus more on the positive outcomes they hope to achieve rather than primarily criticizing their opponents.
"I think many young adults like myself want to be told or shown why something should be done, not simply hear negative commentary about the alternatives."
