Immigration detention in the United States

Average daily population of detained immigrants held by the United States government for the fiscal years 1994-2017.

fImmigration detention in the United States began in 1890s at Ellis Island. The administration of President Ronald Reagan further reacted to the mass migration of asylum seekers who arrived in boats from Haiti by establishing a program to interdict (i.e., stop and search certain vessels suspected of transporting undocumented Haitians).[1] As the number of undocumented immigrants who were fleeing economic and political conditions increased, President Bush Sr's administration attempted to find a regional location to handle the influx of refugees and migrants. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees arranged for several countries in the region—Belize, Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela—to temporarily provide a safe haven for Haitians; however, the Coast Guard was becoming increasingly overcrowded from holding hundreds of refugees, and, by November 18, 1991, the United States forcibly returned 538 Haitians to Haiti.[2] Since the options for safe havens in third countries in the region proved inadequate for the sheer numbers of Haitians fleeing their country, the Coast Guard took them to the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba, where they were pre-screened for asylum in the United States.

Mandatory detention was then officially authorized by President Bill Clinton in 1996 with the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility acts. From 1996 to 1998, the number of immigrants in detention increased from 8,500 to 16,000[3] and by 2008 this number increased to more than 30,000.[4][5] According to the Global Detention Project, the United States possesses the largest immigration detention system in the world.[6] In 2003, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) was created under the Department of Homeland Security. ICE enforces the United States' immigration and customs laws, uses investigative techniques to apprehend and detain those suspected of violating them, and then deports many of these individuals. The Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO), housed within ICE, oversees the detention and deportation of immigrants taken into custody by ICE. Currently, ICE detains immigrants in fifteen detention centers (including privatized facilities), in state and local jails, in juvenile detention centers, and in shelters.[6]

Several human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and a series of reports made by the New York Times have cited concerns with ICE's management of these detention centers. Reports refer to instances of human rights abuse and inadequate or unprofessional medical care in these detention facilities. Such reports have also publicized the death of several immigrants in detention and have accused ICE of covering up this information. ICE, in response, has released a list of 166 people who died under ICE detention between 2003-2016. ICE has publicly stated that the agency provides "state-of-the-art medical care" and "do[es] everything possible to maintain the best quality of life for the detainees in…custody."[7] In May 2008 the Detainee Basic Medical Care Act of 2008 (H.R. 5950) was introduced to the United States Congress by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), though no further steps have been taken to enact the bill.

Process of detention and removal

Detained immigrants are given a unique identifying number called an Alien Registration Number ("A-number"), provided they do not already have one by virtue of their legal alien status, and are sent to a county, state, federal, or private prison, where they remain until deported.

Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations

There are four divisions within ICE: Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), the Office of Investigations (OI), the Office of Intelligence (Intel), and the Office of International Affairs (OIA), which all work to investigate illegal immigration, enforce immigration laws, and detain and deport offenders of these laws. ERO is the division that deals directly with the detention of immigrants. ERO, under ICE, operates eight detention centers, termed "Service Processing Centers," in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico; Batavia, New York; El Centro, California; El Paso, Texas; Florence, Arizona; Miami, Florida; Los Fresnos, Texas; and San Pedro, California. ICE also has contracts with seven private companies that run facilities in Aurora, Colorado; Houston, Texas; Laredo, Texas; Tacoma, Washington; Elizabeth, New Jersey; Queens, New York; and San Diego, California. Other facilities that house immigrant detainees include juvenile detention centers and shelters. However, the majority of immigrants are detained in state and local jails, which have contracts with ICE. At the end of the 2007 fiscal year the United States' immigration detention system comprised 961 sites.[8]

Secure Communities

In 2007, the program, Secure Communities, was created within ICE to identify criminal aliens, prioritize them based on the severity of the crimes that they committed, and transform the processes necessary to remove them by increasing efficiency. Secure Communities identifies undocumented immigrants with the use of modern technology, notably biometric identification techniques. These were first employed in Houston, Texas in 2008.[9] As of April 2011, the Secure Communities' biometric sharing capability is being used in 1,210 of 3,181 jurisdictions (state, county, and local jails and prisons) in the USA. Between 2008, when the program was started, through March 2011, 140,396 convicted criminal aliens have been booked into ICE custody resulting in 72,445 deportations.[10] Under the Secure Communities program, the fingerprints of everyone arrested and booked are not only checked against FBI criminal history records, but they are also checked against DHS immigration records. If fingerprints match DHS records, ICE determines whether immigration-enforcement action is required, considering the immigration status of the alien, the severity of the crime, and the alien's criminal history.[11] ICE then places a detainer on the individual, which is a request that the jail hold that person for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release, so that ICE can come to interview or to possibly take him into custody.[12]

The Obama administration has been a big proponent of the program, expanding it from 14 jurisdictions under President George Bush to over 1,210 jurisdictions as of March 2011.[10][13][14] ICE plans to expand the program nationwide by 2013.[15]

Section 287(g)

The enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996 added onto the Immigration and Nationality Act a clause, titled Section 287(g), which allows state and local law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration law on the condition that they are trained and monitored by ICE. This agreement in practice permits local and state enforcement officials to arrest and even detain individuals they encounter during their day-to-day duties if they suspect them to be or "identify" them as undocumented immigrants. However, many of the individuals picked up by local law enforcement have committed minor offenses, such as driving infractions, and lacked proper identification when stopped. Many civil rights groups have accused Section 287(g) of permitting or causing racial profiling.[16]

Detention at the border

Immigrants apprehended by Rio Grande Valley CBP Agents, 2016

Often, undocumented aliens or individuals lacking legal permission to enter, or remain, in the United States, when apprehended at the U.S. border are detained and placed in removal proceedings in front of an immigration judge. These individuals may include refugees seeking asylum. Under Section 235(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, if an individual stopped at the border is believed to be an undocumented immigrant or a threat to national security, they are considered "inadmissible" and classified as an "arriving alien." Individuals detained at the border are only released on a case-to-case basis by the authority of ICE officials.

Immigration detention facilities are required to uphold many of the same standards maintained by domestic detention facilities as well as international human rights laws and protocols. Facility officials are prohibited from violating the Eighth Amendment in the utilization of force to cause harm to inmates. The US government has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in regards to immigration detention facilities, all of which provide standards and protocols that must be administered and followed in the treatment of immigrant detainees. This includes the proper administration of medical treatment as well as swift response to medical requests by detainees. There have been reports that some facilities utilize punitive disciplinary action that violate the Convention Against Torture and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protocols and that abuse by facility officials is not limited to excessive punitive action. The ACLU has reported that complaints of physical, sexual, and verbal abuse by officials are not at all uncommon and state that there seems to be a pronounced lack of response and record keeping of detainee complaints by facility officials.[17] While immigration detention facilities are required to uphold many of the same standards maintained by domestic detention facilities, the biggest discrepancy is in legal representation. Immigrants are not guaranteed a right to due process but can hire attorneys to handle portions of their casework at cost.

Mandatory Detention

After being picked by ICE officials, either at the Border, through Secure Communities, or by local officials by way of Section 287(g), an individual can be released on bond if they are not deemed a "threat" to national security. However, many are put in mandatory detention due to criminal history. The enactment of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility acts subjected a wider range of individuals to mandatory detention, including, "non-violent misdemeanor convictions without any jail sentence, and anyone considered a national security or terrorist risk." In addition, if an individual is already in the U.S., they will be put in mandatory detention if suspected of being a threat to national security or charged with two crimes of "moral turpitude," an "aggravated felony," a firearms offense, or a controlled substance violation.[18] Thus, crimes that did not assign jail time to the individual may subject them to mandatory detention. The ACLU has condemned this practice, saying that it violates due process and is inefficient and costly, since individuals who do not pose a threat to national security but have a criminal record are often the ones subjected to mandatory detention.[19]

Because the Immigration and Nationality Act and federal court case decisions mandate ICE to carry out a post order custody review of all individuals slated for deportation, when they are held in detention for more than ninety days, to reassess whether or not the individual is a threat to national security or can be released. Thus, such individuals are rarely left in detention for long periods of time without being given notice of release or deportation.

Deportation

Deportation occurs after undocumented residents are brought before an immigration judge in removal proceedings and the judge either issues a warrant of removal or reinstates prior orders of deportation/removal. Removal proceedings are conducted by the Department of Justice-Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Detention centers

Privatization

Several of the detention centers housing immigrants are operated by private corporations who have contracts with ICE. The Varick Federal Detention Facility in Manhattan is one of these privatized detention centers. The Varick facility is managed by Ahtna Technical Services, Inc., an Alaskan corporation that hires a subcontractor to provide guards, transportation, and equipment used at the center.[20] The privatized model of detention, which is common within the United States' prison system, has raised several concerns. Without the government being directly involved, human rights abuses can go unmonitored and be difficult to uncover. The privatization model is based on profit maximization, meaning that more detainees result in more money for the private companies contracted to operate these facilities. While a cost-benefit argument is used to vouch for privatization, an attorney from the ACLU has stated, "It's much more expensive to detain people rather than supervise them to ensure that they appear for their removal proceedings and for deportation if necessary."[21] In 2009, ICE proposed the construction of an immigration detention center outside of Los Angeles, which would be operated by a private corporation.[21]

Several politicians have attempted to end or alter the terms of privatization. In 2015, Rep. Raul Grijalva introduced the Justice Is Not For Sale Act. Co-sponsored by thirty other Democrats, the bill aimed to effectively eliminate private detention centers and transfer their operation over to the federal government. Among some of the current complaints addressed in the bill were the cost of phone calls, which the bill required be capped, and to allow multiple telecommunication companies to provide phone service.[22]

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington introduced a bill in 2015 entitled the Accountability in Immigration Detention Act (H.R. 2314). The bill highlights detention facility standards and oversight for the facilities. More specifically, it calls on for the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce these standards for detention facilities. Items of concern include the cost of telephone calls, prevention of sexual abuse and harassment, and limiting the use of solitary confinement. It also contains suggestions of alternatives to detention. The bill maintains that the use of these alternatives would be left to the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. It was referred to three committees, including the Committee on Homeland Security.[23]

To address the controversial use of quotas in these detention centers, Rep.Theodore Deutch introduced the Protecting Taxpayers and Communities from Local Detention Quotas Act in 2015 (H.R.2808). The bill targets bed quotas used by private companies and demands the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement refuse them in contracts and contract extensions. It had 9 cosponsors, including Rep. Adam Smith and Rep. Raul Grijalva. After its introduction, it was sent to the Committee on the Judiciary in July 2015.[24]

These governmental contracts with detention facilities have not only gained profit for private companies, but also for the cities and counties that house immigrants in their detention centers. In 2008, ICE spent $55.2 million on detaining immigrants at thirteen jails in California and roughly $57 million in 2009.[25] For many cities and counties across the country, immigration detention has been a lucrative business that provides much needed revenue. Santa Ana's Police Chief, Paul Walters, stated, "We treat [the jail] as a business," in reference to a proposed plan to convert rooms at the local jail into a site for detained immigrants.[25]

In 2017, Donald Trump signed an executive order to expand the border wall with Mexico and increase the building of detention centers. A memo from top Homeland Security officials published in 2017 outlines the goal to detain 85,000 illegal immigrants per day. Private prison companies benefit from Trump's strict stance on illegal immigrants because they are paid per inmate per day.[26] GEO Group and CoreCivic, the two largest private prison companies, are known financial supporters of Trump's campaign.[27] Both GEO Group and CoreCivic have released statements in support of Trump's new policies.[28]

Conditions

Several reports have been made citing instances of basic human rights standards being violated in immigration detention centers across the country.[5] Reports have referred to allegations of abuse and a lack of legal counsel and proper medical care provided to detainees. In addition, immigrant detainees, unlike citizen prisoners, can be transferred between detention facilities without notice. While the United States Constitution provides convicted individuals with legal advice, free of charge if they cannot afford an attorney, immigrants are not guaranteed this right. Instead, they must pay for a lawyer, an option most detained immigrants cannot afford. While immigration courts are required to supply detainees with a list of pro-bono lawyers and agencies that provide legal advice, many of those on the list only represent specific types of immigrants, i.e., asylum seekers or individuals who are not detained. While ICE detention standards state that detainees are provided with access to law libraries, allotted a handbook discussing immigration detention, and given a presentation on their legal rights, these actions are often not carried out in practice.[29]

After the horrifying conditions of these immigration detention centers were discussed and revealed over the media, the department of Homeland Security created the most updated Performance-Based National Detention Standards. While the DHS has already implemented two previous versions of PBNDS in 2000 and 2008, the backlash from the disclosure of the environment of these centers as well as the deaths that have occurred pressured ICE to create a more updated version. This most recent 2011 standard was issued in February 2012. These standards include many rules and regulations in order to improve the physical and mental health services, sexual assault prevention and detection, enhanced legal resources as well as standards for daily life conditions including increased access to telephones and religious practices. While these standards are important for living conditions, ICE does not currently have a policy requiring uniform implementation of the most recent standards at all detention centers. Rather, new standards can only be implemented within immigration centers after copious discussion and negotiation with the center's operating facility. Thus, ICE's initial focus while applying the PBNDS 2011 was aimed at the facilities that housed the greatest number of detainees. Since the issuing of these standards 60% of the 2016 immigrant detainee population is held in a facility that has adopted these protocols.[30] Despite these standards being implemented and improving certain aspects of these detention centers, some organizations still have criticisms aimed at ICE's efforts in the detention process. The American Civil Liberties Union is one such national organization that while recognizing that ICE implemented important standards and regulations, still publicizes their critiques including the fact that ICE does not require the latest PBNDS standards at all of the detention facilities. Additionally the ACLU condemns ICE's practice of allowing immigrants to be held in "short term" facilities that do not possess basic needs such as beds, water, and toothbrushes. Furthermore, while the ACLU acknowledges that even though improved standards have been implemented, they believe that ICE over-incarcerates immigrants and other means of resources need to be addressed especially for individuals that are not a flight risk and thus do not need to be detained.[31]

Several cases of abuse in immigration detention centers have been cited by sources including Amnesty International, the ACLU, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times. The Los Angeles Times reported on one such instance of abuse, endured by a detainee named Luiz Enrique Guzman at the private Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, who stated, "the conditions [were] "terrible"…the center staff frequently violated his civil rights" and that "he was beaten while in detention and placed in segregation because he worked to organize detainees."[32] The New York Times reported "recurrent complaints include[ing] frigid temperatures, mildew and meals that leave detainees hungry and willing to clean for $1 a day to pay for commissary food" at the Varick Federal Detention Facility in Manhattan.[33] In addition, individuals in immigration detention centers are often placed in custody with violent offenders, even though undocumented immigration is a civil, not criminal, matter.

Immigrants placed in detention centers often go without thorough medical care and many with illnesses or medical conditions aren't properly monitored by doctors. Mentally disabled detainees are especially vulnerable. If they are transferred, they leave family and doctors without knowledge of their case and are unable to vouch for themselves. According to the New York Times, "their mental incompetence is routinely ignored by immigration judges and deportation officers, who are under pressure to handle rising caseloads and meet government quotas."[34] As of January 10, 2010 there have been 107 deaths of immigrants in detention since 2003, when ICE was created. ICE has been accused of covering up many of these deaths, like that of Boubacar Bah, an immigrant from Guinea who was placed in isolation for thirteen hours after suffering from a skull fracture and eventually died in custody.[35] Another immigrant who died in ICE detention was Hiu Lui Ng, whose fractured spine and cancer had gone undiagnosed. In fact, officials at the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility in Rhode Island accused him of lying about his situation and denied him medical care. Francisco Castaneda was an immigrant detained at a facility in California who was similarly denied care – a biopsy for a penile lesion – and ended up dying from cancer.[36] ICE has responded by publicizing the list of deaths that have occurred in its detention centers,[37] performing a review of its facilities, and issuing a renewed set of standards to be followed in detention.

Role of Detention Officers

The requirements to become an immigration detention center officer are pretty extensive, and demand physical, mental, and emotional capabilities to a high level. The government describes the role of a detention officer as helping secure border, and preserving the integrity of the immigration by executing proper detention and removal programs for illegal immigrants.It is important to note that in the description of these roles, there is no mention of specific care required for the detainees, the job appears to be more long term goal-oriented. Additionally, the job entails creating programs and visions as much as it does abiding by them. Detention officers are always required to develop innovative strategies in order target public safety threats, particularly threats related to illegal alien activity. How accurate the explanation of this role is to what detention officer do on a day to day basis is different based on who you ask. Surely, there have been issues brought up relating to the treatment of detainees - some officers feel strongly about the mission of the government while others empathize with the situation of some immigrants. Nonetheless, the earlier mentioned standards are the ones that detention officers are held to.[38][39]

Another important role when observing the management of detention centers is the role of Management and Program Analyst position. This person is in charge of developing programs, policies, analytical and evaluative methods for the detention centers. Additionally, they highlight that this person is responsible for providing objective information that will help make changes in programs and operations of the detention centers. The specific skill set required for this position is fact-finding, investigation techniques, oral and written communications, and development of presentations and reports.[40]

As of right now, the job descriptions for detentions officers do not address the grey areas that often come up when addressing the needs of transgender detainees. The government appears to be concerned with long term goals and policy more than they are with needs on an individual basis. Observing the language and qualifications that the government publishes for these roles is important to see the standard that officers are held to.

Detention Process & Its Collateral Damage

The enforced detention procedure for unauthorized individuals is a major contribution to the psychological stress that children and family members with an immigrant relative endure. Generally, during the detention process, the individuals are not released pending the deportation hearing. Instead the deportees are forced to stay in immigration detention as they await the deportation hearing. This results in a lack of communication with family and the inability to prepare for childcare. Studies indicate that due to the established detention process, children are placed in the care of others without any information about the whereabouts or conditions of their parents. Children who experience the sudden "disappearance" of a parent undergo severe stress due to the uncertainty. The detention process is not only a painful situation for the detainees but it also poses psychological stress for their children and families.

Studies make it evident that the immigration policies that deal with the detention procedure, fail to address the crucial question; what occurs with children whose parent has been detained? The collateral damage of this procedure is underestimated and disregarded. Specifically, immigration policies and laws disregards this issue based on the assumption that families will remain united whether or not parents are deported. Realistically, statistical evidence demonstrates that when a parent is detained or deported, children are relegated to foster care and family separation can potentially carry on for extended periods. Predominantly, the Juvenile Dependency Court terminates parental rights while children are under foster care. Due to this children forgo the possibility of ever seeing their parents again. According to The Applied Research Center (ARC) children are reunited with their deported parents solely if foreign consulates get involved in the case. Yet most welfare departments purposely fail to contact a foreign consultant once they have custody over the child.

The process of detention negatively affects children resulting in psychological and mental health consequences. Overall, immigration policies and laws cause detrimental impacts on the lives of children and families. Distinctively the detention process is the initial realization of the damaging pain a family lives through. The detention procedure is mischievously conducted to shatter families. It keeps detainees in isolation from their children and families. Immigration detention puts an extended amount of children in foster care and insinuates the possibility of parents losing their children forever. The detention process is a horrifying experience for the detainees and also enacts a destructive impact on children. [41][42]

Criticisms

Human rights

In addition to their condemnation of the conditions at immigration detention centers, various human rights groups and news sources have also criticized the high costs necessary to sustain ICE's detention infrastructure.[5] ICE's annual budget is roughly 2.5 billion for its detention and deportation duties. President Obama's fiscal year 2017 budget request would reduce the bed quota to 30,913 detention beds: 29,953 adult beds at an average rate of $126.46 per day and 960 family beds at an average rate of $161.36 per day.[43][44] Through fiscal year 2016, the bed quota remains at 34,000.[43][44]

It has been reported that only a small percentage of the population of detained immigrants have committed crimes. Of the 32,000 immigrants in ICE detention on January 25, 2009, 18,690 had no criminal convictions, not even for illegal entry.[45]

Protests by detained immigrants have taken place at several facilities, including the Varick Federal Detention Facility in Manhattan. One hundred detainees at the Varick site, all of whom had no criminal charges, sent a petition in October 2008 to the New York City Bar Association detailing human rights abuses and substandard conditions and asking for legal help.[33] On January 19, 2010, detainees at the same site initiated a hunger strike against the conditions of detention. The strike was broken up by a SWAT team that allegedly "used pepper spray and "beat up" some detainees, took many to segregation cells as punishment and transferred about 17 to immigration jails in other states."[46] In response to the report, the New York City Bar Justice Center began the NYC Know Your Rights Project. This initiative combines the efforts of the City Bar Justice Center, the Legal Aid Society and the New York chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association with the goal of providing more pro bono legal help specifically at the Varick detention center. Many detainees are left without legal council at the Varick Facility and at other detention center because their cases are considered civil and not criminal. In these civil cases, defendants must pay for legal counsel. The Bar's Justice Center found that very few detainees could afford such help.[47] Similarly, the Columbia Law Review states that in general most detainees do not have legal representation in their court cases. A report found that the lack of legal aid to detainees threatens the legitimacy and fairness of the court system and the efficiency of the courts themselves. For detainees without legal aid, the decisions of the court on a case are more likely to be incorrect or unjust, according to the report.[48] Many detainees do not get legal aid because, apart from financial issues, they often are transferred to other detention centers without giving alert to family, legal representation or advocacy network. Centers can be rural and isolated, located where legal aid, representation and other forms of advocacy can be inaccessible.[49]

Similarly, the detainees were denied access to adequate healthcare in detention facilities. In a report by Project South and Penn State Law titled "Imprisoned Justice," it is evident that the two detention centers in Georgia, Stewart Detention center and Irwin County Detention Center, were recommended to shut down because they both not only violated Immigration and Customs Enforcement guidelines but also the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guideline.[50] According to these guidelines, every detainee must receive a full medical evaluation at intake but some reported that they had never seen the medical staff. The international human rights principles states that delay in providing medical assistance when asked for is a violation of human rights but the uninformed detainees were handicapped due to lack of knowledge and awareness about their condition. The report demonstrated that the healthcare problems in these centers were easily ignored because the detainees were not aware of their rights in these facilities.

International Regulation Regarding Human Rights

United States Immigration Detention Facilities are required to uphold many of the same standards maintained by domestic detention facilities as well as international human rights laws and protocols. Facility officials are prohibited from violating the Eighth Amendment in the utilization of force to cause harm to inmates. The US government has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in regards to immigration detention facilities, all of which provide standards and protocols that must be administered and followed in the treatment of immigrant detainees. This includes the proper administration of medical treatment as well as swift response to medical requests by detainees. The United States is also bound by the United Nation's Universal Declaration on Human Rights codified in 1948 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both of which swift and adequate response to all medical requests and emergencies. Despite these standards as well as the purpose of immigration detention not being punitive, facilities often utilize punitive disciplinary action that violate the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protocols. However, abuse by facility officials is not limited to excessive punitive action. Complaints of physical, sexual, and verbal abuse by officials are not at all uncommon. Furthermore, there seems to be a pronounced lack of response and record keeping of detainee complaints by facility officials. Detainees are protected via international law through several articles within various treaties in which the United States is a signatory. For example, Article 12 of Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states as follows:

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Violation of this specific article, along with a variety of other international codes that regulate the rights immigrant detainees, are unquestionably common within United States Immigration Detention Facilities. Similar to issues involving lack of response to medical requests and emergencies, immigration detention centers in the United States often violate international human rights codes in regards to lack of legal representation to those held in custody. Other international articles particularly relevant to immigration detention facilities are Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which ensures all individuals of equal rights regardless of nationality and Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees anyone who has been detained be promptly brought before a judge or other judicial power. Continued expansion of immigration detention will further the prevalence of international law violation if enforcement and reformation does not coincide alongside.[51][52][52]

International Human Rights Violations

Since the United States Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996, the use of detention has become the U.S.'s primary enforcement strategy. This is evident by the drastic increase of people being detained, 2008 saw 230, 000 detainees, which was three times the number of people being held in 1999. This overwhelming increase has been accompanied by a rise in violations of international law being committed by the United States against those being detained. Such violations include the handling of grievances, the medical care being provided or lack thereof, and the inhumane and degrading treatment being shown towards detainees. Furthermore, detention policies have worked to disregard the sanctity of the family unit, violate the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, and ignore both domestic and international laws of due process.

The intent behind a grievance procedure is meant to keep detention officials in check and prevent their abuse of power. However, reports have shown that detainees have been denied the chance to file a grievance, and for those who are given the opportunity, it is often ignored or overlooked. This is a direct violation of international law as grievances are meant to be guaranteed to such individuals detained under international law.

Due process is arguably the most evident concern of immigrant detention violations. International law requires interpreters to be provided for cases of language barriers, however personal stories show that this procedure is not always followed. International law guarantees legal material and counsel, however, detainees are often denied such rights. The law libraries being offered to detainees lack sufficient material for individuals to make their own appeal. Access to the internet and to newspaper have often been denied as critical evidence can be found to support asylum claims surrounding news of their countries of origin. The inaccessibility of immigrant detention centers pose a problem as those who can afford counsel risk having meetings be delayed or cancelled. Lawyer-client confidentially is compromised as detention officers have been found to open mail. Cases have also shown that detainees are not offered private rooms away from officers for their meetings.

International law requires that every individual subject to detention have adequate medical care. The United Nation's Universal Declaration on Human Rights was the first to record this universal right in 1984. Based on reports from legal advocacy groups, lack of access to adequate medical care has been the most common complaint made by detainees. It has been found that as many as 80% of detainees are dissatisfied with the medical care practices in place. Medical care has been ignored, inadequate, denied, and in some cases, inhumane.

Despite statements from the United Nations that detention of refugees should be avoided, the United States has often turned to detention as its primary mode of operation when determining asylum claims. Detention of asylum seekers violates Article 26 of the 1951 Convention on Refugees. This article indicates that asylum seekers are lawfully in the United States, granting them freedom while their cases are being determined. Therefore, the United States is in violation of international and domestic laws by detaining refugees before their status is determined.

Immigrant Detention in the United States: Violations of International Human Rights Law is a paper published on Human Rights Brief that investigates how the practice of detention violates international law within sectors previously outlined. Please direct your attention to this study to see reports by international political organizations, legal advocacy groups, and personal accounts from detainees' experience. Given the United States impact on global affairs, implications of its violations to such international legal standards must be recognized. If detention centers continue to be run without the proper oversight, where officials are not held accountable to the standards of international and human rights law, it is likely that such violations will continue. International human rights laws shed light on the shortcomings of the current practice of detention centers, thus the United States must begin to look for alternatives that are in accordance with international human rights standards.[53]

U.S. citizens in immigration detention

There have been numerous cases where U.S. citizens have been held in immigration detention.[54] Data from Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse shows that "detainers were mistakenly placed on 834 U.S. citizens and 28,489 permanent residents between 2008 and 2012."[55] In one case, a man was held in immigration detention for more than three years.[55] In some cases [56] ICE has actually deported US citizens, including native-born US citizens, to other countries. One notorious case (Mark Lyttle) involved a Puerto-Rico born (and therefore US citizen) man deported to Mexico. Another case involved the deportation of a 14 year old girl, born in Dallas, Texas, and therefore a US citizen, to Colombia.[57] Although ICE claims to keep no official figures on the percentage of detainees who have a credible claim to US citizenship, the American Civil Liberties Union[58] estimates this percentage to be between one and four percent. ICE has no legal authority over US citizens.[59]

Alternatives

ICE has acknowledged that its system of immigration detention needs an "overhaul."[5] In 2009, it issued a report citing steps it planned to take "immediately," including hiring a medical professional to review medial complaints and establishing an Office of Detention Oversight (ODO), which will be independent from ERO and will report detainees grievances.[60] U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano stated that alternatives to detention will be provided for immigrants who have no criminal convictions as a part of a series of new reforms planned for the country's immigration detention system. These alternatives include housing immigrants at "converted hotels, residential facilities or place[ing them] on electronic ankle bracelets for monitoring."[43]

In 2016, California State Senator Ricardo Lara from California and co-sponsors the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) and Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC) introduced a bill Dignity not Detention, SB 1289, intended to curtail the practice of detaining immigrants for profit.[61] Currently private prisons are making a substantial profit detaining immigrants. The bill would also ensure that detainees are treated fairly and humanely.[62] SB 1289 was passed in California August 30, 2016, but Governor Jerry Brown vetoed it.[63]

Solitary Confinement

Solitary confinement is a common method used by ICE in detention centers. Throughout the United States, about 300 immigrants are in a state of solitary confinement, with half of them being isolated for more than 15 days.[64] ICE identifies four purposes for segregating detainees:

  • Administrative Segregation: The main causes are if a detainee poses a threat towards other inmates or if a detainee feel threatened by other inmates. However, it also applies for detainees that are awaiting a transfer to another detention center, their release, or a hearing for disciplinary action. Detainees sentenced to administrative segregation are subject to the same treatment that the rest of the population receive.[65]
  • Disciplinary Segregation: If a detainee commits a serious violation of the center's disciplinary norms, the disciplinary facility panel may sentence the detainee to solitary confinement after a hearing. This is only to be used for serious violations that are congruent with the Disciplinary Severity Scale and where no other punishment would adequately fit the violation.[65]
  • Special Vulnerabilities: Detainees that represent special circumstances for solitary confinement include those with poor medical conditions, pregnancies, mental health issues and the elderly. Also those who could be subject to harm by the rest of the detainees because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Special vulnerabilities also include those who have suffered from sexual abuse before arriving in the detention center or during their stay.[65]

Field Officer Directors are only required to write a report to the ICE headquarters only if detainees have been in solitary confinement for a 14 day period. However, cases of solitary confinement may be longer than 14 days, extending to 30, or even 60 days in extreme cases.[65]

Dr. Stuart Grassian, a Board-Certified psychiatrist and former professor of the Harvard Medical School, an expert in the psychological effects of solitary confinement, has concluded that this practice can lead to a psychological syndrome termed as "prison psychosis".[65][66] Some of the symptoms identified with prison psychosis are "hallucinations, panic attacks, overt paranoia, diminished impulse control, hypersensitivity to external stimuli and difficulties with thinking, concentration and memory".[66] The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has stressed that solitary confinement that surpassed 15 days should be eradicated, since scientific evidence shows that it could have irreversible psychiatric consequences.[67]

Immigration detention under Obama

The Obama administration promised to overhaul the immigration detention system and transform it into one that is less punitive, more centralized, and more transparent.[5] However, immigrant rights groups raised concerns about ongoing abuses against detainees. ICE officials were pressured to increase detention and deportation quotas to fulfill the agency's annual goal. A 2010 memo issued by James M. Chaparro, the chief of ICE's Detention and Removal Operations, "congratulated agents for reaching the agency's goal of '150,000 criminal alien removals' for the year ending Sept. 30" but "instructed agents to pick up the pace of deportations by detaining more noncitizens suspected only of unauthorized residence."[68] Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also publicly endorsed the Secure Communities deportation initiative, which has "rapidly expanded" under the Obama administration, expressing a hope in 2009 that the program would expand to all of the United States by 2013.[69]

In late February 2013, ICE announced that it has released "several hundred" detained immigrants from deportation centers ahead of budget cuts; the release of the detained immigrants was praised by Human Rights First, and criticized by Republican Representative Bob Goodlatte.[70] The White House and the Department of Homeland Security distanced itself from the decision to release the detained immigrants with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney calling those released "low-risk, non-criminal detainees".[71] The Associated Press reported that the official in charge of immigration enforcement and removal operations resigned due to the release of the detained undocumented immigrants,[72] but ICE stated that the official had retired and that his departure was not connected to the release.[73] Those released were told they were bonded and released, with ICE officials saying that the released immigrants remain in deportation proceedings.[74] In March 2013, the Department of Homeland Security announced that the number released was more than 2,000 in the states of Arizona, California, Georgia, and Texas; the department also stated it plans to release an additional 3,000 in March 2013.[75] The Politico reports that the cost of housing detained immigrants cost about $164 per day per person.[76]

In a memo made public in 2015, officials issued guidance for ICE personnel directing staff to house transgender immigrants in sex-segregated housing that corresponds with their gender identity.[77]

In 2015, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights did a report entitled With Liberty and Justice for All: The State Civil Rights in Immigration Detention Facilities, which was critical of conditions at immigration detention facilities.[78] One Commissioner filed a lengthy dissent.[79]

Immigration detention under Trump

Following two executive orders on January 25, 2017, ICE accelerated its pace of arrests, arresting 41,000 people within the next 100 days.[80] During the 2017 fiscal year, ICE held a daily average of slightly more than 38,000 people in detention. In President Trump's 2018 budget, the administration proposed spending more on immigration detention beds, expanding capacity to 48,000 people.[80] In addition to detainees, ICE supervises the status of 2.3 million people, who must regularly check in with the agency.[81] Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE, immigration police) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP, Customs and Border Protection) increased the number of unaccompanied minors detained by nearly six, from an average of 2400 each night in May 2017 to 12 800 each evening this month. [82]

Transgender immigrant issues

ICE detains an average of 65 transgender women every day.[83] Although it hasn't become public knowledge until recently, it has been recorded that transgender detainees face many hardships while held in private detention centers.[84] Transgender detainees have reported that many of them have requested hormonal treatment, yet were never provided with such access to hormones while in private detention centers.[84] The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has conducted a thorough investigation on the living conditions of these private institutions, and have suggested that transgender detainees who had previously been subjected to hormonal therapies, should be allowed to continue these hormonal therapies while in detention centers.[84] The SPLC also found that transgender detainees are especially vulnerable to receiving a lack of both mental and medical care while being held within these private facilities.[84] Furthermore, transgender immigrants held within some of these private detention centers, such as Prairieland, are specifically housed in a separate facility from all other immigrants, in order to remain under watchful protection.[85] This visible segregation has resulted in many transgender immigrants wondering if such a specific housing unit causes more harm than good.[85] Even with the availability of a separate transgender unit, some transgender detainees request to be placed with the male population, as they fear that stigma may possibly arise as a result from being separated from the normal population.[85] Investigations of the conditions under which queer detainees (LGBT) live in has resulted in an overwhelming plea for reformation, suggesting that these individuals do not receive adequate protection, care, and housing[84] After investigating the conditions under which transgender detainees live in within these facilities, the SPLC generated a series of potential improvements that can be made to better provide for the safety and comfort of these transgender individuals.[84]

The SPLC's recommendations aim to ensure transgender individuals' well-being is prioritized, whether it be their mental health or physical safety. As mentioned above, transgender detainees face increased adversity and hardship while being held in private detention centers. One remedy that the Department of Homeland Security employs in its detention centers to suppress this increased adversity is the use of solitary confinement for individuals who are at risk in the general populations.[84] Nonetheless, the SPLC believes solitary confinement is not a satisfactory alternative to protecting transgender individuals; instead, transgender individuals, and other at-risk groups, should face more appropriate alternatives or even be released altogether.[84] The SPLC holds this belief because previous research suggests that solitary confinement has adverse emotional and physical effects on individuals.[84] Furthermore, the SPLC recommends that transgender individuals are given more of a voice as to whether they are placed into male or female holding populations, since self-identification is an important component of mental health.[84] The detainees' self-identification should therefore hold weight alongside contradictory legal documents or their respective anatomies.[84] Lastly, the SPLC recommends that transgender detainees be given the option to be both searched in private and searched by an officer of the gender the detainees feel most comfortable with.

Many LGBTQ detainees not only report a lack of provided hormonal care; they are subjects of abuse by other detained immigrants and the guards of these private facilities.[85] Detainees who identify as LGBTQ are found to be 15 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than their heterosexual, non-transgender counterparts.[86] The gender gap leads to humiliation, isolation, and physical and verbal abuse. This isolation is only extended as transgendered inmates must choose between a prison, dominated by men, near their friends, family, home, lawyer and resources and a prison without these critical resources but specified to a prison built and dedicated to the LGBTQ community (even though there is speculation that creating this specialized facility and environment leads to further stigmatization and abuse).[85] Moreover, Inmates are further isolated in their choice between living with males or living in solitary confinement, those who choose to live with their male counterparts are for the most part physically and verbally abused, while those who choose solitary are held for prolonged periods (weeks or months at a time):[87] Human Rights Watch reported that a transgender woman from Mexico had been held in solitary confinement for about 18 months before being deported.[87] These extended periods in Solitary confinement are justified by the prison system under what they call, "protection." Human Rights Watch found a public address to the United Nations General on Torture, which stated that: "'[I]ndefinite and prolonged solitary confinement, in excess of fifteen days, should also be subject to an absolute prohibition,' due to its scientifically proven negatives effects on the mental health of those who are subjected to such forms of isolation".[87] The Human Rights Watch continues with their report that provides further details of abuse suffered by transgender women in detention facilities across the country.[87] At the end of the report, Human Rights Watch also provided recommendations to Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on how to improve the safety of transgender individuals in detention. They asked Congress to bar ICE from holding transgender women in men's facilities and to bar ICE "from placing any immigration detainees in administrative segregation for indefinite periods as a form of protection or for any other reason." Additionally, they asked the DHS to expand and improve upon the 2015 Transgender Care Memorandum.[87] Many LGBTQ activists and supporters comment that we shouldn't or don't have the right to detain those in the at-risk LGBTQ community until we have the capability to detain those included in this group without infringing on their human rights or jeopardizing their safety.[85]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P960.pdf
  2. ↑ http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P4230.pdf
  3. ↑ ACLU. "Analysis of Immigration Detention Policies".
  4. ↑ Amnesty International. "Jailed Without Justice: Immigration Detention in the USA".
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Anil Kalhan (2010), "Rethinking Immigration Detention", Columbia Law Review Sidebar, 110: 42–58, SSRN 1556867
  6. 1 2 Global Detention Project. "United States Detention Profile".
  7. ↑ CBS (2008-05-11). "Detention in America". CBS News.
  8. ↑ Global Detention Project. "List of Detention Sites".
  9. ↑ "Secure Communities".
  10. 1 2 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Secure Communities Activated Jurisdictions Archived May 9, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. April 2011
  11. ↑ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Secure Communities retrieved April 23, 2011.
  12. ↑ Immigration Policy Center: "Immigration Detainers: A Comprehensive Look" February 17, 2010
  13. ↑ Washington Post: "Illegal Immigrant Deportations Up Under Obama" July 26, 2010.
  14. ↑ New York Times: "Immigration Bait and Switch" August 17, 2010
  15. ↑ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Projected Deployment by Fiscal Year of Secure Communities program Archived May 14, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. retrieved April 23, 2011
  16. ↑ Los Angeles Times: "Tougher Rules on Policing Illegal Immigrants" October 14, 2009
  17. ↑ "Conditions of Confinement in Immigration Detention Facilities" (PDF).
  18. ↑ Amnesty International. "Jailed Without Justice: Immigration Detention in the USA".
  19. ↑ ACLU August 18, 1999. "Analysis of Immigration Detention Policies".
  20. ↑ Nina Bernstein (2009-11-02). "Immigrant Jail Test U.S. View of Legal Access". The New York Times.
  21. 1 2 Anna Gorman (2009-02-03). "Immigrant Detention Center Considered for L.A. Area". The Los Angeles Times.
  22. ↑ "H.R.3543 - Justice is Not For Sale Act of 2015". September 17, 2015.
  23. ↑ "H.R.2314 - Accountability in Immigration Detention Act of 2015". May 13, 2015.
  24. ↑ "H.R.2808 - Protecting Taxpayers and Communities from Local Detention Quotas Act". June 17, 2015.
  25. 1 2 Anna Gorman (2009-03-17). "Cities and Counties Rely on U.S. Immigrant Detention Fees". The Los Angeles Times.
  26. ↑ "The private prison industry is licking its chops over Trump's deportation plans". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2017-11-30.
  27. ↑ Tseng, Story by Eli Watkins and Sophie Tatum; Graphics by Joyce. "Private prison industry sees boon under Trump". CNN. Retrieved 2017-11-30.
  28. ↑ Sommer, Jeff (2017-03-10). "Trump Immigration Crackdown Is Great for Private Prison Stocks". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-11-30.
  29. ↑ "Shadow Prison Immigrant Detention In The South". Southern Poverty Law Center.
  30. ↑ "Progress in Implementing 2011 PBNDS Standards and DHS PREA Requirements at Detention Facilities" (PDF).
  31. ↑ ""Holiday on ICE: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's New Immigration Detention Standards"" (PDF).
  32. ↑ Anna Gorman (2009-07-29). "Immigration Detention Centers Failed to Meet Standards, Report Says". The Los Angeles Times.
  33. 1 2 Nina Bernstein (2009-11-02). "Immigrant Jail Test U.S. View of Legal Access". The New York Times.
  34. ↑ Nina Berstein (2009-03-29). "Disabled Immigration Detainees Face Deportation". The New York Times.
  35. ↑ Nina Bernstein (2010-01-09). "Officials Hid Truth of Immigrant Deaths in Jail". The New York Times.
  36. ↑ Nina Bernstein (2008-08-12). "Ill and in Pain, Detainee Dies in U.S. Hands". The New York Times.
  37. ↑ ICE. "Deaths in Detention" (PDF).
  38. ↑ "Detention and Deportation Officer". www.ice.gov. Retrieved 2017-12-04.
  39. ↑ "Riding With ICE: 'We're Trying To Do The Right Thing'". NPR.org. Retrieved 2017-12-04.
  40. ↑ "Management and Program Analyst". www.ice.gov. Retrieved 2017-12-04.
  41. ↑ https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/centers/humanrights/doc/
  42. ↑ http://www.marquette.edu/education/news/documents/Immigration-RelatedStress-AGuideforSchools.pdf
  43. 1 2 3 Anna Gorman (2009-10-06). "Alternative Housing to be Used to Hold Some Immigrant Detainees". The Los Angeles Times.
  44. 1 2 "Immigration Detention Bed Quota Timeline". National Immigrant Justice Center. March 2016. Retrieved 2016-04-26.
  45. ↑ ImmigrationChronicles. "AP: Most Immigration Detainees Have No Criminal Record".
  46. ↑ Nina Bernstein (2010-01-21). "Jail Protest by Immigrant Detainees Is Broken Up by Agents". The New York Times.
  47. ↑ LoBreglio, Kiera, Fragomen Fellow and Lynn M. Kelly. NYC Know Your Rights Project. City Bar Justice Center, November 2009. http://www.citybarjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT%2011-09.pdf
  48. ↑ Sayed, Faiza W. "CHALLENGING DETENTION: WHY IMMIGRANT DETAINEES RECEIVE LESS PROCESS THAN 'ENEMY COMBATANTS' AND WHY THEY DESERVE MORE." Columbia Law Review, vol. 111, no. 8, 2011, pp. 1833–1877. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.emory.edu/stable/41354701?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=immigrant&searchText=detention&searchText=centers&searchText=lawyers&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3Ffc%3Doff%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone%26amp%3BQuery%3Dimmigrant%2Bdetention%2Bcenters%2Blawyers%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bacc%3Don&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
  49. ↑ MOUNTZ, ALISON. "Mapping Remote Detention: Dis/Location through Isolation." Beyond Walls and Cages: Prisons, Borders, and Global Crisis, edited by JENNA M. LOYD et al., University of Georgia Press, 2012, pp. 91–104. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46njgc.12.
  50. ↑ "Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers - May 2017" (PDF).
  51. ↑ https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/prison/unsr_briefing_materials.pdf
  52. 1 2 https://about.illinoisstate.edu/critique/SiteAssets/Pages/Forms/EditForm/Immigrant%20Detention%20in%20the%20United%20States_Violations%20of%20International%20Human%20Rights%20Law.pdf
  53. ↑ "Immigrant Detention in the United States: Violations of International Human Rights Law - Human Rights Brief". Human Rights Brief. Retrieved 2017-12-02.
  54. ↑ "Detain First, Investigate Later". American Civil Liberties Union.
  55. 1 2 Mica Rosenberg. "U.S. man held in immigration detention for three years". Reuters.
  56. ↑ "ICE Deports Non-Spanish Speaking US Citizen to Mexico". American Civil Liberties Union.
  57. ↑ "Texas Teen Mistakenly Deported to Colombia". CNN News.
  58. ↑ "Deportation and Due Proce3ss".
  59. ↑ "U.S. government unlawfully detaining and deporting U.S. citizens as aliens" (PDF).
  60. ↑ ICE. "2009 Immigration Detention Reforms".
  61. ↑ 'It's a nightmare inside': Bill would place new restrictions on private immigrant detention centers: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-immigrant-detention-20160401-story.html
  62. ↑ California Pushes to End Private-Prison Management of Immigrant Detention Centers. The centers have become notorious for their dangerous conditions across the state.http://www.citylab.com/crime/2016/08/california-pushes-to-end-private-prison-managment-of-immigrant-detention-centers/497474/
  63. ↑ California Legislative Information, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1289; https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-30/californias-governor-vetoed-bill-would-stop-privately-run-migrant-detention-what; http://www.ocregister.com/articles/detention-729156-immigration-immigrants.html
  64. ↑ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/us/immigrants-held-in-solitary-cells-often-for-weeks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
  65. 1 2 3 4 5 "Unbundled Immigration Attorneys - Unbundled Legal Help". immigration.unbundledlegalhelp.com. Retrieved 2017-12-04.
  66. 1 2 https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/what-does-solitary-confinement-do-to-your-mind/
  67. ↑ http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40097#.WiRrX7Q-cb0
  68. ↑ Nina Bernstein (2010-03-29). "Disabled Immigration Detainees Face Deportation". The New York Times.
  69. ↑ Julia Preston (2009-11-12). "U.S. Identifies 111,000 Immigrants With Criminal Records". The New York Times.
  70. ↑ Kathleen Hennessey (26 February 2013). "Detained immigrants released; officials cite sequester cuts". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 4 March 2013.
  71. ↑ Jennifer Epstein (27 February 2013). "White House was not involved in ICE's decision to release detainees, Carney says". Politico. Retrieved 4 March 2013.
  72. ↑ "Homeland Security official resigns after release of illegal immigrants blamed on budget cuts". Associated Press. 27 February 2013. Retrieved 5 March 2013.
  73. ↑ Elise Foley (27 February 2013). "Gary Mead Retired, Did Not Resign, Immigration And Customs Enforcement Says". Huffington Post. Retrieved 4 March 2013.
  74. ↑ Mariano Castillo; Nick Valencia (27 February 2013). "Immigration detainee release under fire". CNN. Retrieved 1 March 2013.
  75. ↑ Alicia A. Caldwell (1 March 2013). "DHS freed over 2,000 immigrants since February". The Miami Herald. Associated Press. Retrieved 4 March 2013.
  76. ↑ "Obama administration acknowledges thousands of illegal immigrants released from jails". Politico. Associated Press. 14 March 2013. Retrieved 18 March 2013.
  77. ↑ Yezmin Villarreal (2015-06-29). "ICE: Transgender Immigrants to Be Detained According to Gender Identity". Advocate.com. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
  78. ↑ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, With Liberty and Justice for All: The State of Civil Rights at Immigration Detention Facilities (2015).
  79. ↑ Statement of Commissioner Gail Heriot in U.S. Commission on Civil Right, With Liberty and Justice for All: The State of Civil Rights at Immigration Detention Facilities (2015)
  80. 1 2 "As It Makes More Arrests, ICE Looks For More Detention Centers". NPR.org. October 26, 2017. Retrieved 2018-06-19.
  81. ↑ "As immigration detention soars, 2.3 million people are also regularly checking in with immigration agents". Public Radio International. May 23, 2017. Retrieved 2018-06-19.
  82. ↑ "12,800 immigrant children detained in US internment camps - AWDnews". www.awdnews.com. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
  83. ↑ "Transgender Prisoners Suffer Abuse at Record Numbers". Vice. 2017-06-12. Retrieved 2017-12-04.
  84. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "Shadow Prison Immigrant Detention In The South". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  85. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dart, Tom (2017-02-06). "New detention center's transgender unit in Texas raises concerns over intentions". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  86. ↑ "United We Dream". unitedwedream.org. Retrieved 2017-11-29.
  87. 1 2 3 4 5 ""Do You See How Much I'm Suffering Here?" | Abuse against Transgender Women in US Immigration Detention". Human Rights Watch. 2016-03-23. Retrieved 2017-12-04.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.