Former Minnesota prison to reopen this year as federal immigration detention center 6%

By Katelyn Vue4%

8/4/2026, 7:52:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 11% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 1,082 faulty-reasoning hits from 880 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 15.9% and a BS Rank of 6% (26,154 of 27,739 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.30% of the article peer group.

Former Prairie Correctional Facility in Appleton, Minn., is owned by a private company, CoreCivic. 
The company has previously tried to reopen the prison, which closed in 2010, as a federal immigrant detention center. 
A former private prison in Appleton, Minn., will reopen soon as a new federal immigration detention center. 
CoreCivic, which owns the Prairie Correctional Facility, issued a news release Tuesday confirming that U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) awarded the company a five-year contract that begins Thursday. 
The facility, which is located three hours west of the Twin Cities, will begin housing detainees by the end of this year, according to CoreCivic. 
Several Appleton residents have voiced opposition to the prison’s reopening as an immigration detention center, citing the deaths of detainees and unsanitary conditions at CoreCivic facilities in other states. 
Immigrant rights’ groups and Indivisible Twin Cities, a local advocacy group, began hosting weekly protests last month in Appleton to oppose the plan. 
“Everybody knows that bad things happen all the time all over the world, but when it’s happening right in your community, it just makes it more personal,” Appleton resident Theresa Quinn told Sahan Journal Tuesday. 
Quinn, who attended the last protest against reopening the facility and plans to attend more, sees the shuttered prison on her daily walks. 
“If I’m wrong, I would love for them to do that documentation and accountability and show us that everyone in there is just fine,” she said. 
“Until that, I’m going to worry, because all I know about is what has happened in the past, and I’m not a person that goes around crying all the time, but I’ll tell you what, it would make me very sad.” 
According to CoreCivic’s news release: The detention center is estimated to generate approximately $75 million in revenue a year. 
The contract includes a fixed monthly payment and additional payment based on the number of detainees. 
The facility will ramp up operations throughout the year, and is expected to be fully operational by mid-2027. 
The facility has up to 1,600 beds, more than twice Appleton’s population. 
CoreCivic, which is based in Brentwood, Tenn., is one of ICE’s largest contractors. 
The company has nearly 13,000 employees in more than 70 facilities in several states. 
A CoreCivic media representative reached by Sahan Journal deferred questions about the Appleton contract to ICE, which did not return messages seeking comment. 
Tuesday’s announcement comes after CoreCivic made approximately $1 million in renovations to the Appleton facility starting last fall. 
The prison has been closed since 2010, but Appleton city officials and CoreCivic have discussed the possibility of reopening it for years. 
Rumors of repurposing the prison as an ICE detention center emerged last year when The Washington Post published an article revealing ICE’s plans to increase its number of detention centers. 
“Well, we knew it was coming; it’s not a surprise. 
I’m disgusted, but it’s not a surprise,” said Brian Wojtalewicz, a longtime Appleton resident who lives about two miles from the prison. 
Several immigrant advocates say the development is a concerning sign that federal officials may detain more Minnesotans. 
Many Minnesota detainees were transferred to federal facilities in Texas and other states during Operation Metro Surge, partly due to capacity issues at local county jails that typically house federal detainees. 
“I would absolutely expect to see more enforcement pick up here and across the country,” said Emily Phillips, a member of MN50501, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to protecting democracy. 
“This [immigration detention] is not something that they’re trying to slow down. 
This is something that they’re trying to enforce more heavily.” 
Appleton city officials react 
Appleton City Council Member Jayme Cannon said city officials did not have advance knowledge of CoreCivic’s announcement. 
“I don’t know if I would have a feeling towards it other than let’s make the best of it for a community and a business and a need that is being fulfilled,” she told Sahan Journal. 
Some Appleton residents support the federal contract, Cannon added. 
While city officials have been involved in conversations about the prison’s potential reopening, City Administrator John Olinger said CoreCivic did not need approval from the city since the prison is privately owned. 
He declined to comment further. 
Olinger told Sahan Journal last fall that the city’s housing inventory, medical clinics and water treatment plan would need to expand to accommodate an increase in population due to the facility’s detainees and new employees. 
“The city has nothing to say about it,” City Council Member Allan Oyen told Sahan Journal Tuesday. 
“They [CoreCivic] own the facility. 
I would guess they could put whoever they want in there.” 
Oyen said the Appleton residents who oppose CoreCivic’s plan are “people who disagree with everything.” 
Cannon and Oyen said they haven’t heard of poor conditions or mistreatment at other federal detention facilities owned and operated by CoreCivic. 
Oyen said that while many people agree that federal agents treated Minneapolis residents poorly during Operation Metro Surge, including fatally shooting two residents, he expected things to be different in Appleton. 
“Do I think we’ll have that situation here? 
I don’t think so,” he said. 
“I certainly hope not.” 
Council members James Massee and Vanessa Lhotka-Meyer did not respond to requests for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.3%Katelyn Vue: 0.9%Sahan Journal: 1.4%Confirmation Bias4.3%This article: 1.4%Katelyn Vue: 0.1%Sahan Journal: 0.2%Anchoring Bias1.4%This article: 3.4%Katelyn Vue: 0.5%Sahan Journal: 1.7%Availability Heuristic3.4%This article: 1.5%Katelyn Vue: 0.2%Sahan Journal: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic1.5%This article: 1.1%Katelyn Vue: 0.2%Sahan Journal: 0.3%Hindsight Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.2%Sahan Journal: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Katelyn Vue: 0.5%Sahan Journal: 3.5%Framing Effect2.2%This article: 4.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.4%Sahan Journal: 0.3%Loss Aversion4.0%This article: 3.5%Katelyn Vue: 0.1%Sahan Journal: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.5%This article: 4.7%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect4.7%This article: 11.0%Katelyn Vue: 1.2%Sahan Journal: 3.5%Optimism Bias11.0%This article: 11.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.4%Sahan Journal: 1.4%Pessimism Bias11.0%This article: 5.8%Katelyn Vue: 2.9%Sahan Journal: 3.6%Negativity Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.4%Sahan Journal: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Katelyn Vue: 0.7%Sahan Journal: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error1.3%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.1%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Katelyn Vue: 1.1%Sahan Journal: 1.4%In-Group Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.6%Sahan Journal: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.6%Sahan Journal: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.3%Sahan Journal: 0.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Katelyn Vue: 0.1%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.5%This article: 1.7%Katelyn Vue: 0.2%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Ad Hominem1.7%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.1%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.6%Katelyn Vue: 0.1%Sahan Journal: 1.9%Appeal to Authority3.6%This article: 1.4%Katelyn Vue: 0.1%Sahan Journal: 0.5%False Dilemma1.4%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.2%Sahan Journal: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.2%Katelyn Vue: 1.2%Sahan Journal: 3.1%Hasty Generalization10.2%This article: 3.4%Katelyn Vue: 0.1%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Red Herring3.4%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.1%Sahan Journal: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.0%Katelyn Vue: 1.2%Sahan Journal: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion11.0%This article: 2.5%Katelyn Vue: 0.1%Sahan Journal: 0.3%Begging the Question2.5%This article: 5.6%Katelyn Vue: 0.4%Sahan Journal: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.6%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.1%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.3%Sahan Journal: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.4%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.2%Composition/Division1.4%This article: 8.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.7%Sahan Journal: 2.0%Anecdotal8.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.3%Katelyn Vue: 0.2%Sahan Journal: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.3%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.3%Sahan Journal: 0.3%Unattributed Quote3.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.2%Sahan Journal: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.9%Katelyn Vue: 0.1%Sahan Journal: 1.6%Biased Writer Voice5.9%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katelyn Vue: 0.3%Sahan Journal: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Katelyn Vue: 0.0%Sahan Journal: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.8%

880 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers57%attributed speech382writer words
Selected voice

Brian Wojtalewicz

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words6.4% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Brian Wojtalewicz: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Brian Wojtalewicz: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.