https://thinkprogress.org/the-feder...actually-ending-private-prisons-40e8c8dbf976#
"While the decision will affect 13 federal prisons currently operated by private companies, the bulk of federal private prisons aren’t run by DOJ. In fact, the industry’s biggest client is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — a separate agency that relies on private prisons to hold immigrants, often in appalling and unconstitutional conditions."
"
Private prison companies have projected robust growth over the years thanks to the expansion of deportations under President Obama.
In recent years, the influx of refugees and migrant children fleeing violence in Central American countries has bolstered private prison companies’ projections. CCA explicitly
credited a boost in revenue this year to the increased imprisonment of these Central American mothers and children."
I think it is important to call attention to what a 'department of homeland security' is, what it's relation is to the police, military, and prisons is, in a global and historical context.
"The concept of homeland security did not emerge full-blown from ground zero, but has been around in government and military circles since the 1990s as part of the effort to redefine the role of the Department of Defense and the armed forces in the post–cold war world (the Hardt-Rudman Commision on National Security, for example, discusses this strategy and uses this term).13 The conception of homeland security goes hand in hand with a more flexible multifront mobile role for the armed forces abroad, as one department of a globalized police force. Advocates of homeland security argue for the need for more government, military, and intelligence coordination, for the armed forces to be involved in this country as well, and for the government through surveillance and policing to intrude into more areas of civil life at home. In the words of a homeland security policy group, “homeland security consists of those private and public actions at every level that ensure the ability of Americans to live their lives the way they wish, free from fear of organized attack.”14 Although homeland security may strive to cordon off the nation as a domestic space from external foreign threats, it is actually about breaking down the boundaries between inside and outside, about seeing the homeland in a state of constant emergency from threats within and without. In these policy circles, homeland defense constitutes a subcategory of homeland security. The homeland is not like the home front, for which war is a metaphor, but homeland security depends on a radical insecurity, where the home itself serves as the battleground. If every facet of civilian life is subject to terrorist attack, if a commercial airliner can be turned into a deadly bomb, then every facet of domestic life—in the double sense of the word as private and national—must be both protected and mobilized against these threats.
Homeland security calls for vast new intrusions of government, military, and intelligence forces, not just to secure the homeland from external threats, but to become an integral part of the workings of home, a home in a continual state of emergency. I am not suggesting that policymakers have these multiple meanings in mind when they conspiratorially chose the word homeland. Rather, I am suggesting that the choice of the word puts into play a history of multiple meanings, connotations, and associations that work, on the one hand, to convey a sense of unity, security, and stability, but more profoundly, on the other hand, work to generate forms of radical insecurity by proliferating threats of the foreign lurking within and without national borders. The notion of the homeland draws on comforting images of a deeply rooted past to legitimate modern forms of imperial power."
https://eone10.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/kaplan.pdf
Lastly, a review. ignore the awkward parts about what activists 'really want', journalists are famously bad at figuring motivations:
http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/robin-d-g-kelley-movement-black-lives-vision
"Reducing the military is not just about resources; it is about ending war, at home and abroad. “A Vision for Black Lives” includes a devastating critique of U.S. foreign policy, including the escalation of the war on terror in Africa, machinations in Haiti, the recent coup in Honduras, ongoing support for Israel’s occupation of Palestine, and the role of war and free-trade policies in fueling the global refugee crisis. M4BL’s critique of U.S. militarism is driven by Love—not the uncritical love of flag and nation we saw exhibited at both major party conventions, but a love of global humanity. “The movement for Black lives,” one policy brief explains, “must be tied to liberation movements around the world. The Black community is a global diaspora and our political demands must reflect this global reality. As it stands funds and resources needed to realize domestic demands are currently used for wars and violence destroying communities abroad.”"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_strategy#In_the_United_States (it is pretty clear that the grand strategy is primacy with the other 3 used as tactics to pursue it. also there is no such thing as strategy.)