Immigrant abuse in detention centers has long been a prevalent issue and is largely enabled by the corrupt power structure within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and the government’s complacency in holding this executive agency accountable for its misconduct. The nation’s legislative bodies need to address this issue through both implementing effective legislation and encouraging public engagement on the issue to curb ICE’s unchecked authority and end this abuse.
There are several solutions that can and have worked to curb detention, although not without their respective flaws. How can they be implemented, and what impact do they actually have? The possibilities are endless.
The implementation of immigrant sponsorship programs at detention facilities works as an effective “band-aid” solution to the issue. While effective at stopping existing abuse, it does little to prevent mistreatment from occurring at all. Immigrant sponsorship is a basic resource that governments can provide as an option for detainees to leave their abusive environments at detention centers.
This program entails the release of asylum seekers in detention into supportive housing through sponsor volunteers living in the United States who wish to aid immigrants. There are two significant benefits of this option: asylum seekers are granted the basic rights and freedoms that are theoretically guaranteed to them under international human rights law, and the abuse they face at detention centers is directly mitigated by removing them from that circumstance. In addition, these programs are relatively inexpensive to maintain.
However, the drawback of this solution is that many of these existing programs don’t have the infrastructure to grant all detainees sponsorships, leaving many individuals still vulnerable in detention facilities. Though there are limitations, sponsorship should still be used whenever it is viable to ensure that at least a percentage of detainees can be given freedom.
To increase the effectiveness of immigrant sponsorship, Congress should work to subsidize these programs to expand infrastructure and allow for more volunteers to house asylum-seekers while they await immigration status updates from ICE.
Resource distribution at facilities also works to combat abuse by compensating for detainees’ lack of essential amenities, though this alternative is also quite reactive. There are various nonprofits in Southern California, such as Border Angels and Al Otro Lado, distributing supplies such as water and toiletries to detainees. This provides direct relief to immigrants and allows them to receive supplies that ICE doesn’t provide, which often deteriorates their quality of living.
On the flip side, most private facilities do not allow resource distribution to avoid drawing public attention to their abusive conditions for detainees. This can only be done in centers directly operated by ICE.
The federal government can likely circumvent this issue by mandating resource distribution at every detention center and providing nonprofits funding for these supplies. However, because these solutions don’t anticipate and then terminate the source of the abuse, legislation is an essential element in addressing the root of the mistreatment.
Legislation to ban the continuation of private detention and hold ICE accountable for its past conduct is crucial to proactively preventing immigrant abuse. For example, Illinois House Bill 2040 bans the use of private detention facilities to house immigrants entirely, in which most of the abuse takes place due to a lack of government oversight. Similarly, California AB 32 prohibits all local law enforcement agencies, including ICE officials in the state, from contracting out detention facilities to private entities or renewing existing contracts.
Taking into account the fact that 81% of immigrants are in private facilities that are responsible for disproportionate levels of abuse, this legislation can be extremely effective. Although, there is then a legitimate question of what action the government would then take to ensure the asylum-seekers are placed under safe conditions, which is arguably outside of detention facilities altogether.
Holding ICE to ethical practices and transparency can also be achieved through legislation. According to California AB 2792, ICE is required to hold formal interviews with asylum seekers with prior notification and release information entailing most of the agency’s conduct, including demographic information, for public consumption. Given that ICE has a history of misleading detainees by supplying them incorrect court hearing dates, conducting “surprise” interviews, and failing to provide translators to ensure non-English-speaking immigrants have a clear understanding of their immigration status and all procedures, this legal provision will protect the rights of immigrants as asylum-seekers and has the potential to substantially increase their chances of being granted entrance into the country.
This legislation prevents abuse at the systemic level in private facilities by outlawing them entirely, allowing asylum seekers to reside freely in America as they wait for immigration status updates since ICE would no longer have the detention capacity to detain all asylum seekers, forcing the agency to grant individuals parole. However, many private firms, and even presidential administrations, have and will continue to challenge this legislation in court, which has resulted in AB 32 being struck down as unconstitutional.
Initially, The GEO Group, a private prison company part of the oligopoly that operates detention facilities across the country, sued the state of California for passing AB 32 to ban private detention. The US district court judge presiding over the case at that time largely upheld the ban, though another Appeals Court judge struck it down later.
Perhaps this is why widespread public support for banning detention and holding ICE accountable for its actions is another important aspect of mitigating immigrant abuse; public sentiment in favor of abolishing private detention incentivizes the nation’s top policymakers, lawmakers, and perhaps even courts, to uphold legislation banning detention.
Holding public forums for discourse on ICE and immigration is a minimal, yet significant solution to preventing abuse in detention facilities through the awareness it generates. AB 32 requires that local law agencies conduct an annual public forum to address concerns about immigration detention. These forums will spark increased community engagement to convince the public to empathize with detainees, subsequently initiating reform within ICE.
But, the fact that ICE can reject criticisms indicates that concerns will remain unaddressed if the agency does not yield to public censure. Communities require a substantial platform to criticize immigration detention and those upholding this institution to shift American sentiment in favor of abolishing detention, forcing political leaders to follow through with ending this abusive system. Though, this should be accompanied by binding provisions that hold the government and private entities accountable.
Clearly, the solutions for immigration detention and its abuses are plenty. Now, it is up to the government whether or not they can be successfully implemented, or if the abuses will continue as they have for decades. History and the Progressives are watching.
