澳彩开奖

Just days after winning election, President-elect Donald Trump announced that he intends to round up and deport up to 3 million immigrants.

Such a plan, if carried out immediately, would require a massive 鈥� and costly 鈥� expansion of America鈥檚 prison and detention infrastructure at a time when politicians and policymakers across the ideological spectrum are working to reduce the nation鈥檚 prison population, the world鈥檚 largest.

And it would likely be a major boost to the fortunes of private prison companies that profit from incarceration 鈥� even though most studies show that privately operated prisons are generally more dangerous, less effective and no less expensive than government-run facilities.

Recently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decided to add 10,000 beds to its immigrant detention system, increasing the capacity to 45,000 immigrants per day. But, as a result of Trump鈥檚 proposed deportation plan, the DHS could need many thousands more. Unsurprisingly, private prison stocks have soared since Trump鈥檚 election.

An expansion of the immigrant detention system threatens to greatly exacerbate the mass incarceration crisis in America. And it would violate our nation鈥檚 basic values and cement our reputation as a country intolerant of immigrants.

The findings of this study demonstrate that the immigrant detention system is already rife with civil rights violations and poor conditions that call into question the DHS鈥檚 commitment to the due process rights and safety of detainees. Many of these detainees have lived here for years; others recently fled violence in their home countries to seek refuge in the United States.

This report is the result of a seven-month investigation of six detention centers in the South, a region where tens of thousands of people are locked up for months, sometimes even years, as they await hearings or deportation.

The South is a leader in immigration detention, holding one out of every six detainees in the United States. A closer look makes it clear why it holds this distinction.

Detained immigrants in the South are frequently denied the opportunity of a bond hearing that would free them until their cases are adjudicated.

The region鈥檚 immigration courts, which are often inaccessible to the public, are hostile to immigrants not fortunate enough to have an attorney. And so they wait behind bars in remote Southern facilities virtually indistinguishable from prisons. Many of the facilities are former jails or prisons that were shut down after civil rights investigations and lawsuits revealed poor conditions and abuse.

Now, it鈥檚 the detainees who face abusive and dangerous conditions at these facilities, which fail to meet basic legal and regulatory standards. And it鈥檚 the detainees who often find there is little hope for release as their due process rights are denied.

The investigation by the 澳彩开奖, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and the Adelante Alabama Worker Center focuses on detention centers in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana. Three are operated by private companies and three by county sheriffs. All are paid by the DHS on a per diem basis.

The report is based on tours of each facility and more than 300 in-person interviews with detainees. They represent more than 5 percent of the average daily population of the detention centers studied. From facility to facility, their stories are remarkably similar accounts of abuse, neglect and rights denied 鈥� symptoms of an immigrant detention system where the failures of the nation鈥檚 immigration system intersect with the failures of its prison system.

The South and immigration detention

The South is both a destination for new immigrants seeking security in the U.S. and a staging ground for deportation.

Immigration enforcement is frequent, overly and often violates both citizens鈥� and noncitizens鈥� constitutional rights. Detention centers operate with minimal public scrutiny and few resources. Surrounding communities lack legal organizations that can support or provide any services to detainees. And there are few, if any, immigration lawyers nearby to represent the detainees who can afford to hire a lawyer.

As a result, detained immigrants in the South are among the most isolated in the country.

But for private companies and local governments, the lack of scrutiny is a boon. Immigration detention is lucrative, all the more so when it is possible to avoid providing even basic services or meet basic standards. Nationwide, it鈥檚 a multibillion-dollar business.

The South, which already has some of the highest rates of incarceration in the country, is the bargain basement of immigration detention. Facilities charge among the in the country in order to land Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contracts that can create jobs for communities, revenue for municipalities and profits for , no matter the long-term cost.

It鈥檚 an approach that flows from the South鈥檚 long history of looking to prisons filled mostly with people of color as a way to build local economies 鈥� a history that includes chain gangs and programs that 鈥渓eased鈥� prisoners to companies for work. Today, immigrant detention is but the latest chapter in that history.

The fact is, detained immigrants are seen by many as commodities rather than as people with legal rights. They already face an uphill legal battle. Unlike individuals in criminal proceedings, immigrants in removal proceedings are considered to be in civil proceedings and are not guaranteed a lawyer at government expense. The vast majority of detained immigrants in the South must face immigration courts alone, proceeding pro se (without a lawyer) at a rate much higher than other detainees nationwide.

In light of these factors, it shouldn鈥檛 be a surprise that detained immigrants in the South face some of the worst odds for immigration relief. Southern immigration courts have a higher rate of deportation than courts in other parts of the country. They also have some of the lowest parole and bond grant rates in the country 鈥� a troubling finding because immigrants who bond out or are released on parole are significantly more likely to prevail in their immigration cases than those who remain detained.

Detained immigrants and private prisons

While immigrant detention has largely gone unnoticed in this country, mass incarceration has rightly drawn increasing public attention in recent years 鈥� especially the mistreatment of prisoners by private prison operators. Decisions affecting the nation鈥檚 prison population are affecting immigration detention as well, but not in the same way.

In 2016, the announced that it would no longer contract with private corporations to manage federal prisons, a decision spurred by the decline in the number of federal prisoners and the failure of private prisons to provide safe and secure facilities. In the wake of the decision, the DHS announced that it would also re-examine its use of privatized immigration facilities.

Despite the announcement, DHS quickly renewed or finalized contracts for thousands of additional beds, which suggests a foregone conclusion about its use of private facilities. The agency has also rapidly expanded the number of individuals it plans to detain every night by 10,000 people 鈥� pushing the total number of detainees to an .

What鈥檚 more, the agency鈥檚 new contracts include a facility that lost its contract with the Department of Justice after reports of . The DHS actions suggest that private prisons no longer used by the Department of Justice, including some of the worst private prisons in the nation, could simply become immigration detention centers.

The findings of this report make clear that rather than expanding the nation鈥檚 immigration detention system, DHS should instead address its serious failures. The issues detailed in this report include the following:

• Detained immigrants in the South experience some of the weakest due process protections in the nation, prolonging their detention. In addition to having the lowest rates of legal representation, detainees reported difficulty accessing law libraries and Legal Orientation Programs, which provide information about proceedings and rights. In one immigration court, detainees reported that judges demonstrated bias against detainees without counsel

• Detained immigrants described inadequate medical and mental health treatment, causing needless death and suffering. Detainees reported five deaths at these facilities in 2016 resulting from the failure to receive medical treatment. At all of the detention centers investigated, detainees with chronic medical conditions, such as diabetes, reported an inability to obtain medically appropriate meals.

• Detained immigrants described being subjected to physical abuse, retaliation and excessive use of segregation and lockdown by detention center staff and ICE officers. There is also a general lack of protection from violence within the facilities. They particularly do not provide protection or accommodations to vulnerable detainees, including elderly, disabled and LGBT individuals.

• Several facilities regularly fail to provide sufficient food and clean clothing to detained immigrants. They also failed to provide basic sanitation. Detainees at two of the facilities raised serious concerns about the safety of water used for drinking and washing.

• Detained immigrants reported that detention centers failed to respond to grievances and, in some cases, retaliated against those who filed complaints. A detainee at one facility reported being placed into solitary confinement for three days after helping another detainee complete his grievance form. At another facility, a detainee recalled signing a grievance over a detention center official with 80 other detainees in the unit only for it to be ignored.

• Detained immigrants reported conditions that can lead to rapid mental and physical deterioration. The conditions include a lack of outdoor recreation, activities and religious accommodations. At one detention center lacking an outdoor recreation area, detainees described going virtually months, even years, without spending time outdoors.

Overall, the findings in this report highlight significant failures of the immigrant detention system in the South. Rather than proceeding with a rapid expansion of this already broken system to accommodate a massive deportation dragnet, President-elect Trump should address the conditions in existing facilities and focus on ensuring all of America鈥檚 courts provide due process of law.

The regional focus of this investigation is not intended to suggest that reforms should be limited to one area of the country. The findings should be taken as evidence of the need for sound policy and oversight across the entire immigrant detention system.

Recommendations for reform are offered at the end of the report.

Isolation from legal counsel, access to legal resources

Unlike individuals in criminal proceedings, immigrants in removal proceedings are not guar颅anteed a lawyer at government expense. Legal representation, however, is equally critical for an immigrant鈥檚 likelihood of success in navigating the immigration court system and obtain颅ing relief. Detainees with counsel are 10-and-a-half times more likely to succeed in their cases as compared to their pro se counterparts (detainees without a lawyer); individuals who are released from detention and are able to secure counsel are almost 20 times more likely to succeed in their cases than pro se detainees.

Immigrant detainees in the facilities investigated for this report have among the lowest rates of legal representation anywhere. For example, immigration courts that have jurisdic颅tion over the Stewart, Etowah and LaSalle detention centers have the lowest rates of repre颅sentation in the country.

Only six percent of detainees in the Stewart (Lumpkin), Georgia, and Oakdale, Louisiana, immigration courts are represented by counsel. Nationally, the rate of representation for detained individuals is 14 percent. The Oakdale and Stewart immigration courts also grant relief at the lowest rates nationwide: 5 and 6 percent of all asylum applications, respectively, in contrast with a 48 percent grant rate nationwide.

What鈥檚 more, detainees reported difficulty accessing detention center law libraries, legal materials and mail. Detainees at all facilities reported that legal materials available in the law libraries are very outdated; that country condition reports vital for asylum applications were several years old; and that few of the materials are available in Spanish. Postings of contact information for consular offices and pro bono resources were routinely out of date.

Detainees at Stewart reported that the warden had limited their access to photocop颅ies, making it impossible for detainees to obtain the three copies per document required for court filings. Officials at the Wakulla County Detention Center claimed during a facility tour that detainees are provided with five hours of access to the law library per week and that it is used exclusively for that purpose.

The claim, however, was contradicted by the detention center鈥檚 own schedule posted in the law library. It showed that detainees only had access to it for two hours on weekends. Detainees also confirmed this shortened schedule.

鈥淵ou can only go to the law library on Friday, Saturday and Sunday 鈥� [because] it is being used as a facility for other activities of the police department,鈥� one detainee said. Even dur颅ing weekends, detainees have found that the law library is not always available. 鈥淲e are not guaranteed [access],鈥� a detainee said. 鈥淸The guards] often say we can鈥檛 this weekend because they are short-staffed.鈥�

Wakulla, along with the Baker, Etowah and Irwin detention centers, did not have a Legal Orientation Program available, which provides information about court proceedings and detainees鈥� rights. Detainees at all facilities reported difficulties in receiving and sending mail. Several detainees noted that they had not received letters or documents sent to them by fam颅ily members, including documents critical to their legal cases.

Denials of bond, parole, and other alternatives to detention

Once immigrant detainees are taken into custody in the South, they are more likely to stay detained than detainees in other parts of the country. Detainees at facilities in the South appear to have more difficulty obtaining release on bond, parole, and alternatives to detention when compared to national averages.

ICE鈥檚 national directive outlining parole criteria for asylum seekers provides that an arriving determined to have a credible fear of persecution should generally be paroled from detention if his or her identity is established and if the individual does not pose a flight risk or a danger to community.

Nationally, 5.8 percent of detainees received parole in FY 2015. Despite the large number of individuals encountered during this investigation who fit the profile for parole, virtually no one from the private detention facilities examined were released on parole in FY 2015. No detainees were granted parole at Stewart or LaSalle听in FY 2015 and only 0.2 percent were granted parole at Irwin.

Immigrants at private detention centers in the South are also far less likely to be released on bond than detainees nation颅wide. Nationally, 10.5 percent of detainees were released on bond. At Stewart Detention Center, only 5.2 percent of detain颅ees were released from detention on bond. At the Irwin County Detention Center, it was 7.7 percent of detainees.

When detainees at these facilities were able to receive bond, it was set at an amount much higher than the national average. Nationally, the initial bond for detainees was $8,200 in FY 2015. At Stewart Detention Center, however, the average bond was 67 percent higher: $13,714, an inaccessibly high amount for the vast majority of detainees. At Irwin County Detention Center, the average bond was 41 percent higher 鈥� $11,637.

ICE contract detention facilities reap an inordinate profit from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security鈥檚 (DHS) insis颅tence on maintaining these facilities at or near capacity. As mul颅tiple studies have shown, alternatives to detention cost a frac颅tion of detention in a facility. These alternatives can be very effective at ensuring detainees compliance with .听Private providers and counties are truly the only ben颅eficiaries of the Department of Homeland Security鈥檚 aggressive enforcement.

DHS should consider the experience of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which has implemented sentencing reform that has significantly reduced the federal Bureau of Prison鈥檚 population, allowing the agen颅cy鈥檚 phase-out of private facilities.

In sharp contrast to its sister agency, DHS has increased the number of immigrant detainees and lengthened time in detention by pursuing aggressive enforcement and restrictive detention policies, including limited release of individuals on bond, parole and other alternatives to detention.

The agency鈥檚 aggressive enforcement policies, coupled with its 鈥渂ed mandate鈥� that all 34,000 beds be filled to capacity on any given night, drives the sellers鈥� market for detention contractors. Demand for detention space is nearly entirely the result of the Department of Homeland Security鈥檚 needlessly aggressive enforcement choices, many of which contravene existing policies.

Prolonged detention in Southern facilities

The Supreme Court has concluded that the indefinite detention of individuals who have received a final order of removal is impermissible. It found in Zadvydas v. Davis that after a six-month period, 鈥渙nce the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no sig颅nificant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,鈥� [emphasis added] the 鈥淕overnment must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing鈥� to continue to detain the individual. If the government is unable to do so, the individual is entitled to habeas relief in district court.

This investigation of detention centers revealed a large number of individuals who have been in prolonged detention with little end in sight 鈥� especially at Etowah and LaSalle. Many detainees reported ongoing cases before immigration judges, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or the federal courts of appeal. Additionally, ICE itself has noted that 鈥渕ost of the detainees housed at [Etowah] have an order of removal and are due to difficulties obtaining travel documents from embassy and consular officials.鈥�

Nearly half of the individuals we interviewed at LaSalle had been detained for six months or longer; the vast majority of detainees interviewed at Etowah had been detained for over one year.

Our investigation found cases where individuals had endured prolonged detention because of administrative errors by ICE, including cases where the agency reportedly listed the wrong nationality for a detainee, further complicating attempts to obtain travel docu颅ments to return the detainee to his or her home country.

We also encountered an individual at Etowah who was reportedly a U.S. citizen born in Puerto Rico and had attempted in vain to prove his citizenship to ICE officials. He had been in ICE custody for three years 鈥� nine months of which have been at Etowah. At both facili颅ties, detainees reported confusion or frustration as to why they were not able to have bond hearings or see immigration judges to challenge their prolonged detention. Several detainees described the difficulty getting updates on their cases from ICE deportation officers.

A detainee at LaSalle said 鈥渢he hardest part about being in detention鈥� is the lack of infor颅mation. 鈥淚 put out multiple requests to ICE to find out more info about my case but have got颅ten no responses,鈥� he said.

Potential bias and misconduct by immigration judges

Our interviews with detainees also suggested several serious and systematic due process violations in the Stewart Immigration Court, particularly for those appearing pro se, with颅out an attorney. Immigrant detainees repeatedly have reported that immigration judges at Stewart have demonstrated clear bias against pro se asylum seekers, including immigra颅tion judges that have informed pro se respondents from Central American countries in off-the-record remarks that they will not receive relief. Before his case was even heard, 鈥淸t]he judge told me that I didn鈥檛 come looking for political asylum, but because my home govern颅ment was corrupt and poor,鈥� a detainee from Honduras said.

Immigration judges at Stewart have also reportedly failed to instruct detained pro se respondents who have passed credible fear interviews that they must complete an asylum application to proceed with their asylum claims. If detainees do not timely file their asylum applications, they can be barred from seeking asylum.

Detainees with mental illness have faced the immigration court without counsel, in spite of the Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review鈥檚 policy of identifying detained and unrepresented respondents who are not competent to represent themselves. A detainee at Stewart said he thought ICE鈥檚 medical unit would inform the court of his mental illness and need for counsel. Instead, he found himself without an attorney at the hearing.

A number of detainees, particularly those who spoke neither English nor Spanish fluently, reported lengthy delays in their proceedings because of the court鈥檚 inability to secure inter颅pretation in their language.

Irwin County Detention Center 鈥� Ocilla, Ga.

Almost 200 miles south of Atlanta, the Irwin County Detention Center had long served as a U.S. Marshals Service detention center in this county of about 9,500 people. As times changed, however, this rural county, like so many others, found itself hitching its financial future to immigrant detention.

The detention center had already undergone changes. When the Marshals Service stopped using the detention center, it became a youth boot camp. The aging facility was then bought by a private prison investment company. In 2007, the new corporate owners of the facility persuaded county officials to approve $55 million in lease reve颅nue bonds to renovate the Irwin County Detention Center. The financial maneuver allowed the detention center to receive a multi-million dollar financial injection 鈥� without taxpayer approval.

But it wasn鈥檛 enough to turn the facility鈥檚 fortunes around. By 2009, the facility could not find enough local prisoners to fill its beds. It oper颅ated with a deep deficit. A new company, Municipal Corrections, LLC, took over, contracting with a sister entity, Detention Management, LLC, to operate the facility. Their new strategy: secure a contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). County leaders hoped the plan would succeed. As the president of the Ocilla-Irwin Chamber of Commerce put it, 鈥淵ou鈥檝e got to go out and get a contract with ICE. That鈥檚 your salvation.鈥�

Detention Management secured the support of members of Congress. The lawmakers convinced ICE to sign a contract that charged $45 per night, per detainee 鈥� a bargain basement price compared to the $69 to $90 rate ICE was cur颅rently paying in Georgia, one congressman noted at the time.

The contract was not without controversy. Some ICE officials balked at the difficulty of hold颅ing detainees so far from ICE鈥檚 administrative offices and courts in Atlanta. The distance would make required visits by deportation officers, the service of legal documents and court transport more complicated and expensive for the government.

Other observers wondered where the detainees would come from. ICE proposed mov颅ing detainees from Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama, which had come under fire for alleged abuse in its facility. After pressure from Alabama鈥檚 congressional del颅egation, ICE agreed to move female detainees from Etowah to Irwin, but to provide Etowah with detainees from elsewhere.

It soon became clear that the Irwin County Detention Center was still financially insol颅vent. By 2012, it owed Irwin County $1.6 million in back taxes and penalties. After the deten颅tion center鈥檚 owners were forced into bankruptcy proceedings, the facility was sold to new private owners, CGL and LaSalle Corrections, which continue to manage the detention cen颅ter under an ICE contract.

DUE PROCESS

Lack of access to legal materials and mail

Detainees overwhelmingly expressed confusion over the status of their legal proceedings. It was unclear from interviews whether they are able to receive legal mail from their counsel. They also complained that guards did not respond to requests to use the law library. 鈥淚 made a request but they have never taken me there,鈥� Jose, a detainee from Guatemala said. 鈥淚 hear it takes a while to get to the law library.鈥�

Only a few detainees interviewed had ever used the law library. The detainees complained that materials in the law library were out of date, which was confirmed during a facility tour. Several posted lists for resources, including consular offices, were at least two years out of date.

Detainees also noted that the detention center had a common library, with books and other resources, but that this library was off-limits for immigrant detainees, who comprise the vast majority of those held at the Irwin County Detention Center.

DETENTION CONDITIONS

Failure to provide adequate medical and mental health care

Over the course of our investigation, we encountered numerous reports of Irwin County Detention Center鈥檚 failure to provide adequate medical and mental health care to detainees. This failure is particularly problematic for individuals with serious medical issues, such as cancer and heart conditions.

In several cases, detainees were denied the appropriate diagnostic tests necessary to provide treatment. Hazeem, a detainee from India, suspected he had a heart condition and asked to see a doctor. It was a request he would keep making for the next five months. Irwin County Detention Center officials only allowed him to see nurses. In January 2016, he suf颅fered a heart attack. A cardiologist later confirmed his medical condition and recommended additional testing. Detention center officials, however, have refused to authorize the recom颅mended testing.

In one extreme example, detention center officials refused to provide the necessary diag颅nostic tests and cancer treatment for Mark Bell, a Jamaican national. Mark was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2011. He also suffered from severe kidney problems. When Mark entered ICE custody in late 2015, he requested medical care and provided proof of his cancer diagnosis. Detention center officials still refused to provide treatment.

After filing several grievances and complaints with officials, medical personnel provided Mark with the wrong diagnostic test, leading ICE to declare him 鈥渃ancer-free.鈥� He contin颅ued to request the proper diagnostic test to demonstrate that he has cancer, but Irwin鈥檚 med颅ical staff continued to deny it. Mark was deported in September 2016 鈥� after ICE denied his humanitarian request for a stay of removal.

Several detainees worried about the length of time officials take to respond to medical emer颅gencies. Detainee units do not have medical alert systems to notify guards of an emergency. The vast majority of detainees interviewed also did not know what to do if someone needed emergency medical attention. 鈥淭here is no alert button in the room,鈥� one detainee said. 鈥淸There is] no way to alert the guards of an emergency in the middle of the night.鈥�

After Saul, a detainee at Irwin, fell in his unit and hit his head, officials merely instructed him to fill out a sick call slip. It wasn鈥檛 until he began throwing up and fell to the floor that officials finally took him to the medical unit. Samuel, another detainee at Irwin, told offi颅cials he was suffering from a severe medical condition, but staff didn鈥檛 come to help until he fainted, said a detainee who shared a unit with the man.

Detainees also reported lengthy delays in receiving prescribed medication as well as dif颅ficulty receiving medication at consistent times each day, particularly diabetic detainees. Benjamin, a detainee at Irwin, reported that he has waited for a month to receive medication since arriving at the detention center.

Multiple detainees noted the lack of treatment available for individuals with appar颅ent mental health problems. Nearly every detainee we interviewed said they did not know whether mental health care was provided. 鈥淭here is a guy 鈥� who lives with us. When he eats, he feeds himself and fake feeds his friend who died,鈥� Samuel said. 鈥淗e鈥檚 supposed to get a shot but he doesn鈥檛 get it.鈥�

Overuse of segregation, discrimination and threats of force by guards

Solitary confinement has widely been found to have harmful psychological and physiologi颅cal effects. It has been shown to lead to 鈥渟evere confusional, paranoid, and hallucinatory fea颅tures,鈥� and 鈥渞andom, impulsive, often self-directed violence,鈥� even for those with no prior history of mental illness.

ICE standards restrict the use and conditions of segregation in detention centers. This investigation found that the Irwin County Detention Center鈥檚 use of segregation clearly vio颅lates these guidelines, and that guards abuse the threat of segregation.

Several detainees interviewed for this report complained that they were placed in admin颅istrative segregation upon arrival at Irwin 鈥� a clearly impermissible use of segregation under ICE standards. The detainees reported that they were placed in solitary confinement for sev颅eral days until residential units became available. One detainee reported that he had been placed in segregation for 10 days while awaiting placement at the facility.

Detainees also reported that they had been placed in segregation for minor offenses that had little to do with the safety of the facility. Marcel, a detainee from Cameroon, for example, was placed in segregation for helping someone write a grievance. 鈥淚 helped a detainee write a request and was put in [solitary] for the three days,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he guy I helped had been working in the kitchen but was pulled out and wanted to know why. He only spoke Spanish so I was helping him. The ICE officer said I couldn鈥檛 help another write a grievance.鈥�

Several detainees noted that guards often threatened detainees with solitary confinement for raising complaints. As Gerardo, a detainee at Irwin, recalled, 鈥渇or three days we were served the same food. If we said we didn鈥檛 want to eat it they told us they would put us in solitary.鈥�

Detainees also said that guards often yelled, were rude or made racist comments. Samuel, a detainee from Sierra Leone, said 鈥渁 white officer once told me, 鈥楾ake your black ass to your room.鈥� I wrote a grievance to the captain 鈥� but I didn鈥檛 know the officer鈥檚 name.鈥� Detainees also reported that guards have hurled insults and profanity, such as 鈥渇uck you鈥� or 鈥淭hat鈥檚 why they will send you back to your country.鈥�

Several detainees complained that staff refused to provide grievance forms and failed to respond when grievances were filed. As Leonel, a detainee at Irwin, recalled, 鈥淚 did [file a grievance] once, about a security officer who was making fun of me and laughing. The whole unit put forth the complaint. They didn鈥檛 respond for two months.鈥�

Lack of adequate and proper food

Concerns about the safety, quality and quantity of food served were also raised by detainees during interviews. They complained about small food portions that left them hungry. Others complained about the taste. Several individuals said that they became sick after eating the food.

鈥淭he food is bad, and looks like dog food,鈥� said Simon, a detainee at Irwin, who has lived in the United States for over 20 years. 鈥淥ne day we found cockroaches on the ham and they still served it.鈥� Another detainee said people 鈥渉ave found hairs in the food, a fly in the food, blood on a fork and a piece of plastic in the food. People have gotten sick a lot.鈥�

Samuel, a detainee who worked in the kitchen, provided some insight about the food issues. 鈥淚 was in charge of passing out fruit. I saw an expired can and I told 鈥� the kitchen lady, but she didn鈥檛 do anything,鈥� the detainee said. 鈥淚 threw it away in the trash and got in big trouble. They told me I shouldn鈥檛 have because they would have taken it back to the com颅pany, but I know they would have used it. They add water to the food to expand it. There is not enough food and you can鈥檛 ask for more. I have seen roaches in the pots and hair on the food. They also use dirty trays.鈥�

LaSalle Detention Facility 鈥� Jena, La.

LaSalle Detention Facility is located in Jena, Louisiana, a town with a population of 3,400. The small town attracted national attention in 2006 after six black high school students were initially charged with attempted second-degree murder for a fight with a white student at Jena High School after nooses were found hanging off of a tree on campus. Thousands of people descended on the town in 2007 to protest the charges, which seemed to typify the of black youths in America.

That same year, only a short, five-minute drive from Jena High School, the GEO Group, a for-profit private prison company, began to operate the LaSalle Detention Facility as an immi颅grant detention center. Immigrant detention is the company鈥檚 latest venture involving the facility, which originally opened in 1998 as the and was operated by the GEO Group when it was known as the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation.

Advocacy groups reported significant human rights abuses created largely by Wackenhut鈥檚 cost-cutting efforts and the prison was closed , after investigations found the facility unfit for use. In 2005, the prison was used again to hold prisoners evacuated from New Orleans in the aftermath of . The prison was then closed down after several reports of at the facility, which was operated by the state at that time.

Two years later, the LaSalle Detention Facility opened its doors as an under the management of the GEO Group 鈥� less than a decade after reports of abuse forced GEO to shut down its juvenile detention center on the same site. The facility currently has a capacity of approximately 1,100 detainees, approximately one-third of the town鈥檚 population. This facility 鈥� located in a state that 鈥� now serves as one of ICE鈥檚 key staging grounds for deportations from the region.

DUE PROCESS

The vast majority of detainees at LaSalle Detention Facility lack counsel. Only 6 percent of detained individuals appearing before the Oakdale Immigration Court, which is where LaSalle detainees typically have their cases heard, are represented by counsel. That figure is well below the 14 percent representation rate for detainees nationally. It鈥檚 also far below the 37 percent representation rate for all people (including those who are not detained) with a proceeding in an immigration court. What鈥檚 more, the Oakdale Immigration Court grants relief at one of the lowest rates in the nation: Only 5 percent of all asylum applications in FY 2015 were granted by the court, far below the 48 percent grant rate nationwide.

Prolonged Detention

Nearly a third of the individuals we interviewed had been detained for six months or longer. Given the overwhelming lack of legal representation for detainees at LaSalle, those who were interviewed knew very little about why ICE continued to detain them, even after they had been ordered removed. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that ICE cannot indefinitely detain individ颅uals if it cannot secure removal and federal regulations require ICE to conduct custody reviews for people who have been detained for more than 90 days after a final order of removal.

Several detainees at LaSalle, however, reported that their reviews had been delayed, or merely resulted in prolonged detention. Scott, a disabled detainee who is confined to a wheelchair, reported that he had been detained at LaSalle for over a year, even after agreeing to his deporta颅tion order. Although Scott would like to be released from detention and return to his home coun颅try, ICE claimed in his last custody review that it had not been able to obtain travel documents for his deportation and would continue to detain him until it was able to do so.

In the meantime, Scott has faced numerous challenges as a LaSalle detainee with disabili颅ties. 鈥淭his place is not equipped to deal with someone like me, who is paralyzed in a wheel颅chair,鈥� he said. Scott鈥檚 paralysis requires additional medical assistance by staff, which he has not received during his time at LaSalle. He reported that he had a wound on his buttocks that had become infected and eventually required hospitalization because medical staff at LaSalle had failed to provide the proper dressing changes.

This investigation also found that in the handful of cases where a bond hearing was held before the immigration court, the immigration judges denied bond, leaving people in detention even where it had been previously offered by ICE. As Ravi, a detainee from Bangladesh noted: 鈥淚CE offered a bond of $7,500. When I went to pay it, the [immigration judge] denied bond.鈥�

Sixto, a young father from Guatemala with a 5-year-old boy was detained again after he had complied with all the conditions of his release. 鈥淸The detainee] has had no meeting with any judge or immigration official since being detained,鈥� an interviewer for this report noted. 鈥淗e has no court date. He is extremely confused as to why he is detained; he was wearing an ankle monitor, following all the rules, and going to his ICE appointments every 15 days.鈥�

Delayed Adjudication

Many detainees who had come to the United States seeking asylum had received no informa颅tion about whether or when they would be scheduled for an interview with an asylum officer or appear before an immigration judge, even after being detained for more than a month.

Maya, who has been detained for almost two months, said, 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know why I haven鈥檛 received an appointment with the judge or received any information about my case.鈥� Even detainees who had decided that they wanted to return home were stuck in detention without any information as to how to leave.

Jane, who has been detained for over a month, informed us that she could not figure out how to be released, even though she no longer wanted to apply for asylum. 鈥淚 just want to return to Honduras. My mother is very sick. But I still have not gotten any documents for a court hearing from a judge,鈥� she said.

Several detainees mentioned the difficulty communicating with ICE deportation officers to obtain a status update on their case 鈥� which perpetuates the confusion and uncertainty sur颅rounding their cases. 鈥淚 sent a request to my deportation officer about three weeks ago. I didn鈥檛 hear back yet,鈥� said Pedro, a detainee at LaSalle. Adan, another detainee at LaSalle, said that the 鈥渢he hardest part about being in detention鈥� is the lack of information. 鈥淚 put out multiple requests to ICE to find out more info about my case but have gotten no responses,鈥� he said.

Lack of access to counsel and legal materials

Detainees have experienced difficulty navigating their cases due to a lack of access to coun颅sel and to the law library. Jessica, a detainee from Honduras, reported that she had to appear at her asylum interview without her lawyer, because officers would not let her return to her unit to obtain his phone number.

Several detainees also complained about the challenges they faced in obtaining confiden颅tial calls with their attorneys. 鈥淲hen you set up a legal call, it鈥檚 for five or 20 minutes,鈥� said Mayra, who has been detained for over 10 months. 鈥淚 requested a legal call three weeks ago, and I am just getting it now.鈥�

Ramon, a detainee from El Salvador, said that he did not understand the charges levied against him and was unable to defend his rights because he doesn鈥檛 have access to the neces颅sary legal resources. A number of detainees were not even aware that the detention center had a law library. Several detainees reported that they were not able to use the law library for the required five hours per week.

Detainees who used the law library said its materials were out of date. They also pointed to the lack of materials in Spanish or other languages. Female detainees said that they had less access to the law library than male detainees. One detainee complained that a librar颅ian had cut her access short and lied about the amount of time she had spent in the library before her court proceeding.

Families of the detainees have also suffered as a result of these due process issues. The long distance from the detention center to metropolitan areas has prevented family mem颅bers from seeing their detained loved ones. In most cases, families must travel by car for 10 hours or more for visitation. The cost of lodging and meals can also make the trip prohibi颅tively expensive.

鈥淚t鈥檚 very difficult to come here,鈥� said Miriam, who had been detained for over 15 months. 鈥淰ery expensive, far and no hotels here.鈥�

Long-term detention not only inflicts emotional harm, but financial harm as well. Veronica, who had been a legal resident since 1980, said her prolonged detention drove her family to financial ruin. She lost her home, her daughters quit college and her mother has spent almost all of her retirement savings to care for her children and pay for her legal expenses. 鈥淎ll my kids were A-B students and are now not doing well,鈥� she said. 鈥淸My child], age 8, lost weight and has night terrors.鈥�

Mayra, who has been detained for over 10 months, has three U.S.-citizen children, ages 10 and below. She has lost her home since being detained. Her elderly mother, who has her own medical issues, is caring for her children. Mayra had created a good life for herself as a surgery technician when immigration authorities detained her over an 11-year-old forg颅ery conviction she received when she was 18 and would have soon been expunged from her record. She worries about her children鈥檚 care because now they do not have enough money for necessities.

DETENTION CONDITIONS

Failure to provide adequate medical and mental health care

There are serious concerns about medical care at LaSalle Detention Facility. In the first half of 2016 alone, three LaSalle detainees died while in ICE custody. The detainees ranged in age from 36 to 65 and died from heart ailments and, in one instance, liver failure. Saul Enrique Banegas-Guzman, a 46-year-old Honduran national, died of cardiac arrest on Jan. 20, 2016. Thongchay Saengsiri, a 65-year-old Laotian national, died of a heart attack on March 17, 2016. Juan Luis Boch-Paniagua, a 36-year-old Guatemalan national, died of liver failure after being admitted for possible , on June 1, 2016.

Detainees also reported the death of another former detainee, Xiu Zhen Li, a 33-year-old woman from China who died on Oct. 29, 2016, shortly after leaving the facility two months earlier. Her friend Grace, who was detained in the same unit, described the lack of care that Xiu Zhen had received after telling officials that she had cancer. 鈥淭he doctors said that she was lying. She threw up every day. 鈥� She was here for three months and asked for care,鈥� she said. 鈥淪he was finally sent to a doctor and allowed to join her family, but it was too late.鈥�

Detainees reported significant challenges to receiving medical attention, including the lack of physicians at the facility and the failure of staff to respond quickly to medical emer颅gencies. During a tour of the facility, officials confirmed that it operated with a shortage of medical staff and that detainees were typically seen by nurses who cannot prescribe medica颅tion and can only provide one dose of an over-the-counter medication.

Only after a detainee is seen by a nurse does he or she typically have the opportunity to see a doctor or nurse practitioner who can provide appropriate medical care. Any treat颅ment beyond basic primary care requires approval for an off-site specialist visit. Detainees鈥� description of the difficulties in receiving care reflects significant delays and the shortage of medical staff at LaSalle. Mark, who has been detained for over three years, said that 鈥渢rying to get to medical is hard because you have to see the nurse about three times before you see an actual doctor. They just give us ibuprofen.鈥�

Several detainees were aware of those who had died at LaSalle, and were concerned that these deaths resulted from lack of medical attention at the facility. 鈥淸I]t needs to be a very serious emergency [to get immediate medical attention],鈥� said Marta. 鈥淪omeone needs to be unconscious on the floor or profusely bleeding. If someone is in debilitating pain that is not reason enough to seek immediate medical attention. If it鈥檚 not deemed an emergency, than you have to wait until sick call to get attention.鈥�

Detainees reported that attempted suicide did not appear to merit urgent attention. Sophie, a detainee from Mexico, described how she became distraught after her father died from cancer and her son was killed while she has been detained.

鈥淚 felt suicidal,鈥� she said. 鈥淚 entered into a deep depression. I wanted to end my life, and took 15 allergy pills. They made me fall asleep for two days. No official checked on me or my condition during that time, and neither did my unit mates. After I woke up, I realized I needed to talk to a psychologist. I put in a request, but no one has given me help. I have been very depressed and cannot sleep. I am always sad and hear voices.鈥�

Sophie鈥檚 experience was not unique. Other detainees described officials鈥� failure to respond to attempted suicide in other cases. 鈥淟ast month, one detainee tried to hang himself in the dorm,鈥� said Fisher, who has been detained for over two years. 鈥淭he code was called but no administrators came.鈥�

Detainees also noted that facility staff actively discouraged them from attempting to access care. 鈥淭hey shout at people. People are scared to go to sick call because they yell, 鈥榃hy did you go to sick call?鈥欌�� said Fahad, who has been detained for over a year. 鈥淧eople with serious medical problems are not getting proper care.鈥�

Detainees also reported difficulty obtaining and retaining copies of their medical records. Miriam, a detainee in her late sixties who recently suffered from a heart attack, recounted how a GEO officer took her medical records when she saw a doctor, but would not return them. 鈥淭he GEO employee told me I did not have access to my papers,鈥� she said. 鈥淸He] took my doctor鈥檚 business card away from me and threw it in the trash.鈥�

As in all detention centers investigated for this report, multiple detainees reported that medical staff provides ibuprofen or Tylenol in response to most complaints 鈥� or merely instructs detainees to 鈥渄rink more water鈥濃�� failing to diagnose or treat serious underlying medical conditions, including high blood pressure or stomach pain. Mayra reported that she found a painful cyst in her breast. Her request for a mammogram was denied. She was told to take ibuprofen instead.

Oralia, a detainee from Mexico who suffers from ovarian cysts, reported that 鈥渕y left ovary hurt. I had seen a gynecologist before. 鈥� But here, I just kept asking and they just gave me pain medication. Finally, just two weeks ago, they took me to a doctor to do a study.鈥�

Julian, an HIV-positive detainee reported that he had not received his medication for six days upon transfer to the facility. Gaps in could enable the virus to become resistant to drug treatment.

Detainees with serious mental health issues at LaSalle are housed with the general pop颅ulation at LaSalle, or otherwise kept in filthy infirmary holding cells, according to detainee reports. Detainees said detention center staff members are not capable of dealing with indi颅viduals with mental health issues. 鈥淭he [corrections officers] are unequipped to handle spe颅cial people,鈥� said Veronica, a detainee from Peru. 鈥淸There was] a detainee who kicked people and threw chairs. [The corrections officers] told her to calm down and stop, but that detainee continued until she left.鈥�

The psychological care at LaSalle is ineffective, according to detainees. 鈥淧sych is bad. They just give you meds,鈥� said Catalina, who has been detained for over eight months. 鈥淎 blue and brown pill, they didn鈥檛 tell me what was in it. When I took it, I almost passed out. They don鈥檛 tell you the consequences of medication. There is no therapy 鈥� just meds.鈥�

Neglect of elderly and disabled detainees

This investigation found that LaSalle provides little to no support for disabled and elderly detainees 鈥� failures that have resulted in serious neglect. One detainee recalled the plight of an elderly male detainee confined to a wheelchair. 鈥淗e did not get assistance from guards, only from other detainees,鈥� he recalled. 鈥淗e needed help bathing, dressing and eating. When the center was inspected, they put him in a separate cell and said he was receiving care. He came back to our cell later and had not been cleaned for five days.鈥�

Another detainee said she knew a woman in a wheelchair who has been at LaSalle for almost a year and is 鈥渁ll on her own and doesn鈥檛 seem to get any extra help.鈥� According to detainees, the conditions of the LaSalle facility also endanger individuals in wheelchairs, such as bathroom areas where water may be backing up. 鈥淭here was a lady in a wheelchair, and it was dangerous for her,鈥� recalled Catalina. 鈥淪he fell in the shower and had lots of problems. They wouldn鈥檛 listen to her.鈥�

Abusive discipline, use of tear gas and pepper spray, force-feeding hunger strikers

This investigation revealed a lack of safety and widespread violence at the LaSalle Detention Facility. A number of detainees reported feeling unsafe in their units. Guards assigned to the secure units would rarely intervene in disturbances, according to some interviewees.

鈥淭here is a lot of violence 鈥� the guards do nothing,鈥� said Sarai, a detainee from Mexico.

Several detainees reported a high incidence of aggressive and abusive discipline by guards, including the use of pepper spray and tear gas. Marta, who has been detained for a year, reported witnessing two separate occasions where guards resorted to using a stun gun or pepper spray against fighting detainees. Veronica, a detainee from Mexico, recalled that guards threatened to use tear gas on female detainees after they protested being moved to a worse part of the facility.

Detainees also said that guards frequently used rude and derogatory language. Several women complained that they were called 鈥渂itches鈥� or 鈥�pinches,鈥� a derogatory Spanish term. Some guards called detainees 鈥渃ockroaches.鈥�

Female detainees also noted that officers had placed them into segregation units as a result of overcrowding in the facility, a clearly impermissible use of segregation. Leslie, a Honduran detainee who simply wants to return home, said: 鈥淚 was taken to solitary because there was no space. . . . [T]hey wanted to bring men into our unit. I was there for a whole week. I had no access to anything.鈥�

Detainees who participated in hunger strikes to protest poor conditions and due process violations reported that guards responded aggressively, immediately placing detainees into segregation and seeking force-feeding orders.

鈥淕EO forces you to eat food,鈥� recalled Fahad, a detainee from Bangladesh. 鈥淭hey threaten you by bringing handcuffs. ICE said that if you don鈥檛 eat they will put you in federal prison for a long time. One man who spoke out was deported to India. He was 77. Another Bangladeshi man was deported. He was 27. Guards tasered them. No one helped.鈥�

Charat, a detainee from India who had been detained for over a year and half, recalled that he was immediately placed in segregation after starting a hunger strike. 鈥淒uring the hunger strike, I was locked down in a cell, then taken to the medical unit,鈥� he said. 鈥淥n the fifth day, they said they would try and force-feed me. They showed me an order from a judge. So I decided to stop the hunger strike.鈥�

Lack of protection and care for LGBT detainees

This investigation revealed serious mistreatment and safety issues for lesbian, gay, bisex颅ual and transgender (LGBT) detainees at the LaSalle Detention Facility. Detainees reported harassment from guards as well as other detainees, the facility鈥檚 failure to protect LGBT detainees from others, and the denial of hormones.

Sarai, who identifies as a lesbian, complained of harassment from guards and harassment and beatings from other detainees. Her request for protective custody was ignored, even though she did not feel safe. Even after filing a grievance, she had yet to receive a response from ICE or LaSalle.

鈥淧eople invent things and tell the guards that I did something, just because they don鈥檛 like that I am a lesbian,鈥� she said. 鈥淧eople hit and touch me, too. The guards do nothing, there is no one I can complain to. I really want help with this. I am the only LGBT person I know here.鈥�

Julian, a detainee from Mexico, also complained that 鈥渉e was marked鈥� because he was gay and the guards were not interested in protecting his safety. One transgender detainee reported that they had requested hormones and were denied.

Squalid conditions, lack of hygiene

Several detainees reported unhygienic, sometimes filthy conditions at LaSalle. Many indi颅viduals complained of flooding problems, mold on the walls, leaks in the showers and worms in toilets and shower stalls. Detainees complained about insect and rodent infestations, which have, at times, ended up in the food.

They also reported that temperatures in the living areas 鈥� or 鈥減ods鈥� 鈥� fluctuated greatly, with some saying their rooms were very cold, while in other pods, it was too hot. Detainees reported that the air conditioning units were turned off during the weekends. Several detainees from multiple units reported that water in their bathrooms was colored an artifi颅cial shade of blue, staining their skin and towels. Detainees also reported that the tempera颅ture for showers could not be adjusted and was too hot; several reported being scalded while bathing.

LaSalle provides detainees only with basic hygiene items: a toothbrush, toothpaste, lotion and a comb. Several detainees complained that the toothpaste provided by the facility is expired. Detainees must purchase soap from the commissary; if they cannot afford to pur颅chase soap, they must use liquid soap from dispensers, which is often unavailable. A female detainee also complained that women only receive two rolls of toilet paper per week for per颅sonal use and only two to three tampons or sanitary pads.

Lack of safe water and food

Detainees raised several concerns about the safety, quality, quantity and repetition of the food served. Several detainees reported becoming ill from the detention center鈥檚 food and suffering from nausea, diarrhea and bacterial infection requiring antibiotic treatment. Others, particularly those who worked in the kitchen, were concerned about the quality and cleanliness of the food.

鈥淢any people have gotten sick,鈥� one detainee said. 鈥淚 have found roaches in the food 鈥� bugs and mosquitoes too. I work in the kitchen. I have seen many roaches and rats. If there are roaches there, they get into the food.鈥� Another detainee described moldy dinner buns, spoiled milk, bologna with 鈥渂rown spots on it,鈥� and 鈥渂ad canned goods.鈥�

Stewart Detention Center 鈥� Lumpkin, Ga.

Before the Civil War, Stewart County, Georgia, was one of the state鈥檚 largest cotton produc颅ers. It was also one of the state鈥檚 most populous counties 鈥� roughly half of the county鈥檚 resi颅dents were slaves. Today, Stewart County is one of the least populous counties in the state with less than 6,000 residents. Approximately one-quarter of the county鈥檚 residents, however, are Hispanic immigrants detained at Stewart Detention Center.

The facility, which has a capacity of 2,000 detainees, is one of the nation鈥檚 largest immigrant detention centers. It also represents Stewart County鈥檚 hopes of boosting the local economy with a new indus颅try 鈥� immigrant detention. The county decided to construct the facil颅ity in 2004. It sat empty for two years before the county entered into an arrangement with ICE and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) to house immigrant detainees.

The detention center鈥檚 impact can be seen in the county鈥檚 popula颅tion. Between 2000 and 2010, Stewart County saw the greatest percentage increase of Hispanic residents in the United States 鈥� a jump from 1.5 per颅cent to 24 percent, which was almost entirely due to the detention center.

Under the terms of the immigrant detention agreement, ICE pays the county approximately $60 per day per detainee, which is divided between the county and CCA. The county鈥檚 take equals 85 cents per day per detainee.

The rest of the money goes to CCA for managing the facility. The money has been just enough to keep solvent, but it has meant millions of dollars in profits for CCA.

DUE PROCESS

The Stewart Immigration Court sits within the same barbed wire fence as the detention cen颅ter and adjudicates removal cases for detainees at the facility. Two immigration judges hear approximately 3,700 cases that come before the court every year.

This investigation has raised several due process concerns about the court. For example, 6 percent of detainees at the Stewart Detention Center are represented by counsel. That鈥檚 far lower than the 14 percent representation rate of all detained individuals, and the 37 percent representation rate of all immigrants in removal proceedings nationwide. The court also grants immigration relief at one of the lowest rates in the country. Only 6 percent of all asy颅lum applications in FY 2012 were granted compared to a 48 percent grant rate nationwide. Stewart Detention Center, however, is now the first detention facility in the country to pro颅vide a video teleconferencing platform to allow attorneys to communicate with their clients, which was installed only after advocates, including the 澳彩开奖, discovered this requirement in a contract between ICE and Stewart County and demanded compliance.

Immigrants at Stewart also faced a lower likelihood of being released on bond or parole than the national average 鈥� only 7.7 percent of detainees at Stewart were released on bond in 2015, in contrast to 10.5 percent nationwide. No immigrant detainees at Stewart were released on parole in 2015 compared to 5.8 percent nationwide. The absolute denial of parole at the Stewart Immigration Court makes it clear that the court is not following ICE鈥檚 national directive outlining the parole criteria for .

In light of these figures, it鈥檚 apparent why detainees have staged several hunger strikes regarding adjudication and due process issues at the court. The lengthy delays and indeter颅minate lengths of detention have also profoundly affected the mental health of detainees.

Bias against pro se asylum seekers

Detainee interviews suggest several serious and systematic due process violations in the Stewart Immigration Court, particularly for those immigrants appearing without an attor颅ney, or pro se. Detainees repeatedly reported that immigration judges at Stewart have dem颅onstrated clear bias against pro se asylum seekers. A number of detainees reported that Immigration Judge Saundra Arrington, in off-the-record remarks, told pro se respondents from Central America that they would not receive immigration relief. The remarks were made before she heard their cases.

鈥淸T]he judge told me that I didn鈥檛 come looking for political asylum, but because my home government was corrupt and poor,鈥� said Marco, a detainee from Honduras. The same judge reportedly referred to Somali asylum seekers in a general, racist manner. Ashkir, a detainee from Somalia, noted that the judge referred to him in the plural, as if he represented all Somalis rather than an individual attempting to make a case for his unique situation.

Immigration judges at Stewart have also reportedly failed to instruct detained pro se respondents who have passed credible fear interviews that they must complete an asylum application to proceed with their claim. At least one pro se detainee was not provided an application or instructions on pursuing his asylum claim at his master calendar hearing, which is where the court determines how the case will proceed.

Detainees also reported that immigration judges at Stewart have discouraged appeal and failed to provide forms required for pro se detained respondents to appeal denials of relief before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

鈥淛udge Arrington was very bad,鈥� said Stuart, a detainee from the Bahamas. 鈥淪he won鈥檛 allow people to object or give written documents. She put my case off for six months after she was reversed [by the Board of Immigration Appeals].鈥�

Lack of access to legal materials and mail

Approximately 94 percent of detainees at Stewart lack legal representation in their cases. For this reason, access to legal materials and mail is critical to detainees鈥� chances of success as they represent themselves in immigration court. Detainees, however, noted several chal颅lenges in using the facility鈥檚 law library.

Multiple detainees reported that legal materials available in the library are outdated, including samples of asylum applications, which are dated 2002. In some cases, country condition reports vital for asylum applications did not reflect the current political realities because they were over four years old. Detainees also reported that case law and statutory language on computer programs were outdated or incomplete.

Although the detention center is required to provide sufficient photocopies to prepare for legal proceedings, several detainees reported that the warden has limited the num颅ber of copies to one per document, making it nearly impossible to obtain the three copies required for court filings.

A number of detainees also reported difficulties in receiving and sending mail, includ颅ing detainees who said they had not received letters or documents critical to their legal cases sent by family members.

Other due process issues

Detainees with mental illness have faced the immigration court without counsel, despite a federal policy of identifying detained and unrepresented respondents who are not com颅petent to represent themselves. Gerrod, a detainee with a mental illness, said he thought ICE鈥檚 medical unit would inform the court of his condition and need for counsel. Instead, he found himself without counsel at the hearing. The immigration judge failed to explain what was happening. The detainee is unsure of what is happening in his case.

A number of detainees, particularly those who spoke neither English nor Spanish fluently, reported lengthy delays in their proceedings because of the court鈥檚 inability to find interpre颅tation in their language. Lack of interpretation was particularly challenging for detainees from Africa, including Amharic- and Kotokoli-language speakers.

DETENTION CONDITIONS

Failure to provide adequate medical care

Detainees have endured unnecessary suffering and health complications due to the Stewart Detention Center鈥檚 failure to provide adequate medical care. They describe a facility where staff fail to respond quickly to medical emergency and lacks enough physicians to adequately respond to the routine medical needs of detainees.

Several detainees recalled a recent incident where an older man suffered a 鈥� a medical emergency, which in some cases can be fatal. Medical personnel did not arrive for at least 20 minutes. One detainee reported that 鈥渙fficers were laughing at him without offering any kind of assistance.鈥�

Medical personnel also denied care to detainees, resulting in serious complications.

鈥淚 broke my clavicle [while detained] and didn鈥檛 get medical treatment for five months,鈥� Esteban, a detainee at Irwin, said. 鈥淚 kept going to the infirmary but they kept insisting I was okay, despite bleeding and having part of my bone in my neck showing.鈥� Only after a hunger strike by detainees over facility conditions brought authorities to the detention center was he sent to the doctor. 鈥淭he doctor asked me why I didn鈥檛 come in earlier,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he doc颅tor said my clavicle could have been reset but by then I needed surgery.鈥�

As in all detention centers investigated for this report, multiple detainees reported that medical staff provided only ibuprofen or Tylenol for most complaints, failing to diagnose or treat underlying medical conditions. As Bernardo, a detainee at Irwin noted, 鈥淚 had to go to the hospital because I had trouble urinating. The doctor said that my bladder was swollen but the only medication I had been given for this was Tylenol.鈥�

Guillermo reported that his foot had begun to swell as a result of an infection. 鈥淚 went to sick call two times and only saw a nurse,鈥� he said. 鈥淢y foot still did not get better. I was even颅tually taken to the hospital and was admitted for four days. My foot was so infected they had to do a procedure to drain the pus.鈥�

Detainees also reported significant delays of two weeks or more in receiving prescribed medication, including medication for serious kidney conditions, blood sugar issues and diabetes. Detainees who cannot speak English also faced obstacles to care because no med颅ical personnel at Stewart speak languages other than English. The detention center uses a phone-based interpretation service to communicate with detainees. However, as Esmail, a detainee from El Salvador noted, the interpretation system is so poor that detainees can颅not understand what is happening. 鈥淚鈥檝e been called 鈥榮tupid鈥� by a doctor for not speaking English,鈥� said Manuel, a detainee from Nicaragua, explained to interviewers in Spanish.

Abusive discipline, segregation and lockdown

Detainees at Stewart, driven to desperation by harsh conditions and due process violations in immigration court, have turned to hunger strikes as a form of protest during the past year. In September 2015, detainees at Stewart Detention Center staged , demanding improvements to conditions at the detention center and an end to the lengthy waits for resolution of their cases. Guards reportedly responded by shooting detainees with rubber bullets and other projectiles. They placed approximately 100 detainees in segregation.

鈥淚 was put in segregation for 11 days after the September lockdown,鈥� recalled Ignacio, a detainee who speaks fluent English and Spanish. 鈥淚 was translating for someone and they accused me of being the ringleader.鈥�

Detainees throughout the entire facility were punished as all units were placed on lock颅down for about five days. Visitation was also banned.

The incident is an example of the abusive discipline tactics reported at the Stewart Detention Center, including the overuse of segregation and lockdown. 鈥淚f you are put in segregation, it can be just for complaining,鈥� said Ali, a detainee from Iraq. Another detainee recalled seeing a person sent to segregation 鈥渏ust for sitting in the wrong space in the chow hall.鈥�

Detainees have reported that a person can end up in segregation for not doing anything. Oscar reported that he was placed in segre颅gation for 28 days after someone else complained about worms in the food. 鈥淭he guards thought I said it, so they put me in [segrega颅tion] for agitating the detainees,鈥� he said.

Since September, detainees reported that several additional hunger strikes and protests have taken place, resulting in lock颅downs throughout the facility. Arturo recalled a hunger strike and subsequent lockdown in November 2015. 鈥淲e had to stay in our beds, the televisions were turned off, and we were not allowed to make any phone calls.鈥� Detainees also noted guards鈥� overuse of the threat of segregation. It was really bad,鈥� Ali recalled about his experience in segregation. 鈥淚f you are put in segregation, it can be just for complaining.鈥� 鈥淭he officials are disrespectful,鈥� noted Manuel. 鈥淚t seems like they always come to work angry and threaten us with 鈥榯he hole.鈥欌��

Multiple detainees said that guards make racist comments, mock and curse detainees. One detainee described a staff member eager to hand out pun颅ishment. 鈥淭here is a supervisor of all the units whom everyone is scared of,鈥� said Wildin Acosta, who has since been released. 鈥淪ometimes she doesn鈥檛 like the way you answer her so she will write up detainees. She will write up detainees who don鈥檛 understand what she is saying. 鈥� [A]fter the third time, you don鈥檛 get commissary. After the fourth time, you go in [segregation].鈥�

Failure to respond to detainee grievances

Several detainees reported that attempting to resolve issues through Stewart鈥檚 grievance process rarely results in responses from officials. In several cases, detainees said grievances are rejected or misdirected. Whatever the case, detainees saw little chance of the grievance process resolving issues.

鈥淧eople file grievances all the time, but nothing gets resolved,鈥� one detainee said. Juan Manuel recalled when he and 80 other detainees signed a grievance over a detention center official.

鈥淣othing has resulted from it,鈥� he said.

Camilo, a detainee at Stewart, had been left in a holding cell for over four hours because facility officials forgot about him, found few avenues that offered hope the incident would be addressed. After informing ICE officials and filing a grievance, he called the Department of Homeland Security complaint line published in the detainee manual. The number, however, was blocked. ICE officials told him to contact his deportation officer, who was unable to help him.

Lack of safe water and food

Newly arrived detainees at the Stewart Detention Center, quickly learn from others held at the facility that they shouldn鈥檛 drink the water, which they say is discolored and leads to seri颅ous illness. Daniel learned first-hand the consequences of ignoring the warning, reporting that he suffered from diarrhea for weeks after drinking it.

Detainees also raised concerns about the food served. Several detainees reported becom颅ing ill from spoiled food, including stomach aches and diarrhea; others reported receiving expired food, food with mold on it, and, in some cases, with worms and insects. Detainees who worked in the kitchen confirmed that they had been required to serve expired food and had seen insect infestations throughout the kitchen.

Individuals with dietary needs based on medical conditions 鈥� including those with dia颅betes, renal conditions, or requiring low-sodium diets 鈥� reported great difficulty in obtain颅ing special meals. Diets for diabetics, in particular, include a dangerously high amount of starches and carbohydrates.

Other detainees may simply have a difficult time finding out what will be served. During a tour of the facility for this report, it was discovered that menus posted throughout the deten颅tion center were from the previous year.

Lack of religious accommodations

Immigrant detainees do not lose their constitutional right to freedom of religion within the walls of a detention center. Muslim and Hindu detainees, however, have reported that the Stewart Detention Center has failed to accommodate their religious beliefs and practices.

Muslim detainees reported that copies of the Koran were unavailable, although equiv颅alent materials, such as the Bible, were widely available to detainees. Muslim detainees also said that detention officials failed to accommodate their needs during Ramadan. This included failing to provide meals equivalent to those missed during the fast and forbidding group prayer. Several detainees also reported that no special food services, as recognized by national detention standards, were provided at the start and end of Ramadan.

Hindu detainees also reported difficulty obtaining vegetarian meals as required by their faith. One detainee reported filing 33 grievances regarding this issue without resolution.

The findings of this study demand immediate, serious reform to protect detainees鈥� health, safety and access to courts. It鈥檚 also necessary to ensure that the detention facilities are in compliance with federal law and administrative standards.

While the failures documented within the report are the result of an investigation into six immigrant detention centers in the South, it would be a mistake to assume that the detention centers in other regions are immune to similar failures. Reform that would correct the issues uncovered by this investigation would benefit all detention centers and detainees. The fol颅lowing recommendations offer reform that is nationwide in scope to prevent such failures at detention centers and immigration courts regardless of their location.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)

DHS should drastically reduce the number of immigrant detainees.

• DHS under the Trump administration should not move on plans for a recently announced mass deportation of 3 million immigrants. Rather than proceed with a rapid expansion of this already broken immigration detention system to accommodate a massive deportation dragnet, President-elect Trump should address the conditions in existing facilities and focus on ensuring all of America鈥檚 courts provide due process of law.

• DHS should drastically reduce the use of immigration detention as a whole.481 Funding for immigration detention should instead shift to community-based alternatives, which have been demonstrated to be much less expensive to administer and to provide more appropriate humani颅tarian support, and can be as equally effective in guaranteeing compliance with court dates.

• The Department of Justice (DOJ) and DHS should end the practice of detention as a first resort. Instead, they should establish a nationwide practice of bond hearings for detainees after six months.

• ICE should abide by the 2009 鈥淒irective for Parole of Arriving Aliens Found to Have a Credible Fear of Persecution and Torture.鈥� It should prioritize the release of disabled and elderly individuals on alternatives to detention options.

DHS should terminate the outsourcing of immigration detention to private detention compa颅nies and local entities.

• DHS should limit detention of immigrants to federally owned facilities, with detention limited for the purpose of effectuating removal.

DHS must ensure greater transparency and accountability in its contracting practices, if it chooses to continue to use private and county detention centers. It should immediately ter颅minate contracts for facilities with continued noncompliance.

• ICE should publicly release all information pertaining to detention contracts and ensure that any bidding process be publicly accessible and transparent. DHS should ensure that any detention facility inspection process is transparent. Notably, all of the facilities investigated for this report received passing grades upon inspection by government compliance inspec颅tors despite clear evidence of noncompliance during our visits.

• DHS should ensure that any facility inspections and death reviews are available to the public within three months of being finalized.

• ICE should remove from all detention contracts guaranteed minimums for occupancy, tiered pricing or any other provisions that could function as a local lockup quota or incentive.

• ICE should include penalties for facilities where DHS finds substantial noncompliance. ICE should terminate contracts within 60 days for those facilities with repeat findings of substantial noncompliance, including an inadequate or less-than-the-equivalent median score in two consecutive inspections.

• Several organizations have urged DHS to amend its inspections and audit procedures. We recommend that DHS adopt the recommendations in full offered by the National Immigrant Justice Center and the Detention Watch Network in their report, Lives in Peril: How Ineffective Inspections Make ICE Complicit in Detention Center Abuse.

DHS must ensure constitutional minimums are met by developing and enforcing strict com颅pliance standards for conditions at all facilities.

• As the government鈥檚 existing system for monitoring detention conditions and rights of detained immigrants is severely deficient, DHS should promulgate legally binding regula颅tions to ensure the uniform and humane treatment of immigration detainees in all facili颅ties. In the meantime, DHS should consistently apply the 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) to all facilities used by ICE and discontinue contracts where current standards are not being met.

DHS must strengthen access to counsel and legal materials for all immigrant detainees.

• DHS must require that detention facilities, particularly those in remote locations, allow counsel to schedule calls or video sessions with detained immigrants. DHS must also estab颅lish clear avenues for individuals to receive, sign and review legal documents in detention.

• DHS must provide up-to-date legal information and books in law libraries. At a minimum, the materials should be provided in English and Spanish. Detention facilities should allow community organizations to donate legal materials, resources and books to libraries. Access to the law library should be available at least once a day for at least three hours during day颅time hours, and should not conflict with recreation.

• DHS must establish requirements for programming, including educational and/or voca颅tional classes, for detained individuals within all facilities.

DHS must strengthen requirements for medical care at all facilities.

• DHS must ensure that a fully sufficient number of qualified medical, dental, and men颅tal health professionals are available to provide preventative, routine, urgent and emergency health care in a timely manner on site in every detention facility. Health care providers must be fully licensed and must not practice beyond the scope permissible given qualifications and licensing. It must ensure that detainees are timely, properly and consistently referred to com颅petent healthcare providers within the detention center and outside the facility as needed.

• DHS should revise all detention standards, including the Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS 2011), to require that medical care providers be held responsible for meeting the health care needs of individuals in ICE custody as opposed to simply providing 鈥渁ccess鈥� to health care. The PBNDS 2011 medical care standards should be revised to meet or exceed all analogous National Commission on Correctional Health Care standards for prison and jail health care.

• DHS should also separate Immigrant Health Service Corps (IHSC), which dictates the medi颅cal treatments that may be approved or denied for immigrant detainees, from ICE鈥檚 authority. In the alternative, DHS should revamp the responsibilities of the IHSC to conform to broader ICE detention standards and accepted legal, medical and human rights standards on medical care.

• DHS should further require mental health screenings that properly identify detainees with psychiatric conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder. ICE should prioritize releasing individuals with mental health illnesses to detention alternatives that will allow for treatment of the illness or disability. DHS should prohibit placing such detainees in isolation or seclusion at any detention facility.

DHS must end the misuse of solitary confinement at all detention facilities.

• If individuals cannot be safely detained as part of the general population, they should not be held in detention. Alternatives to detention must be utilized in these cases. Solitary con颅finement should not be used for individuals with mental health and chronic medical condi颅tions, LGBT individuals and other vulnerable populations for whom release or alternatives to detention are more appropriate.

• DHS should also prohibit the use of disciplinary segregation for individuals with a serious mental illness and instead provide psychiatric care to the individual. DHS must drastically limit the use of punitive and administrative segregation. Segregation should be a rare occur颅rence 鈥� not a daily practice.

• DHS must track the use of solitary confinement for all detained individuals, regardless of length of segregation or special vulnerabilities, to prevent abuse. It must publicly release the information to promote transparency. Independent third parties should be part of the over颅sight process.

• DHS must require immigration detention facilities to properly investigate accusations against detained individuals before placing them in disciplinary segregation. It must also require facilities to afford individuals an opportunity to confront the evidence against them. DHS must provide all information to the detained individual relating to the alleged infraction.

• DHS must eliminate the use of restraints in all detention facilities.

• DHS must ensure that all detention centers, including privately and locally operated centers, end abuse of force.

• DHS must ensure that all detention facilities comply with the PBNDS 2011 use of force guidelines.

• Any grievances or complaints filed (verbally or in writing) involving an alleged use of force by a jail officer must be investigated in accordance with policies laid out in the PBNDS. An officer鈥檚 statements should not automatically be deemed more credible than any witness鈥檚 statements. These statements and investigation should be considered in relation to past con颅duct 鈥� or patterns of conduct 鈥� by the officers involved. Incidents involving inappropriate use of force should be automatically referred to internal affairs at ICE, DHS鈥檚 Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and DHS鈥檚 Office of the Inspector General.

DHS must ensure food and water safety at all detention facilities.

• DHS should conduct environmental and safety reviews and tests of water in all facilities. It must require immediate remediation by operators failing to meet appropriate federal stan颅dards. DHS should evaluate the quality of food in each facility and change contractors upon failure to meet safety standards. It should penalize vendors for failure to provide proper and medically appropriate meals for detainees.

DHS must allow detainees access to outdoor recreation and other programming.

• DHS should provide daily outdoor recreation to all detained immigrants, subject to weather conditions. It should discontinue contracts with facilities that fail to provide out颅door access or define 鈥渙utdoor recreation鈥� as an indoor facility that merely provides access to open air through windows.

• DHS should allow and establish programming for detained individuals within each facil颅ity, including educational and/or vocational classes.

Restore in-person visitation for detainees.

• DHS must restore in-person family visitation and contact visits at all facilities.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (DOJ EOIR)

Provide bond hearings to detainees and set reasonable bond amounts.

• DHS and DOJ EOIR should end prolonged detention and ensure that immigration judge bond hearings are provided to all individuals detained for more than six months. At the hear颅ing, the government should bear the burden of proving that continued detention is justified.

• DOJ EOIR should set guidelines for immigration judges to set and issue reasonable bonds, taking into consideration an individual鈥檚 ability to pay from the first bond redetermination assessment. EOIR should implement a policy favoring conditional parole without payment of bond. If a bond is set, and if the person cannot pay the set bond, immigration judges should determine whether any alternative release options are sufficient to mitigate concerns about flight risk and danger. This rule should apply to all bond determinations, including bonds granted at the outset of an individual鈥檚 detention.

• DHS and DOJ EOIR should stop the use of cash bonds, and allow individuals to post a deposit bond (where the individual deposits 10 percent or some other percentage of the full bond amount) or a property or collateral bond (where the individual posts property valued at the bond amount as an assurance of his or her appearance in court), instead of requiring that he or she post the full cash amount to be released, as currently required.

Ensure immigration judges provide hearings in full compliance with detainees鈥� rights to due process.

• EOIR should immediately investigate the Stewart Immigration Court to evaluate whether individuals鈥� applications for relief, including asylum, were improperly pretermitted or han颅dled inappropriately by immigration judges.

• EOIR should require that recording equipment remain on whenever an immigration judge is in the courtroom, including before the start of proceedings. EOIR should instruct court administrators to release copies of such recordings to respondents upon request, including to pro se individuals in detention.

• EOIR should establish Legal Orientation Programs at all detention centers, particularly those more than a one-hour drive from a major metropolitan area. In addition, EOIR should require immigration judges to provide information about the availability of Legal Orientation Programs before the end of any proceedings.

• Immigration courts must allow detained immigrants to attend in-person hearings unshackled. Detainees鈥� A-files must be available to them, along with supplies that will enable them to take notes in the courtroom.

• EOIR should rescind policies, including EOIR Security Directive 01-2015: Public Use of Electronic Devices in EOIR Space, which restrict the use of video recording equipment dur颅ing public hearings and rescind directives that prohibit the use of electronic devices in the courtroom. As most EOIR hearings are public, unless specifically designated otherwise, the public should be able to view court hearings.

The investigation described in this report focused on the violation of detainees鈥� rights under the Constitution as well as federal standards for the treatment of detainees. This appendix outlines the legal rights of immigrant detainees in the United States.

Constitutional protections

The detention of immigrants is considered to be a civil, not a criminal, matter. Immigrant detainees, regardless of legal status, are entitled to important constitutional protections. The Fifth Amendment protects every immigrant from deprivation of life, property or liberty without due process of law.

Although courts have recognized that the 鈥渟everity of deportation鈥� is 鈥渢he equivalent of banishment or exile,鈥� detainees are not entitled to counsel at government expense. Lack of counsel can pose insurmountable challenges for detainees who must navigate immigration laws that have been described as 鈥渟econd only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity鈥� and where 鈥渁 lawyer is often the only person who could thread the labyrinth.鈥�

Federal courts have recognized a detainee鈥檚 due process right to counsel at his or her own expense. They have also recognized that the government must not deny immigrants the opportunity to obtain and meet with counsel or to access the courts. The right to due process also requires that immigrants be given notice and an opportunity to be heard during removal proceedings.

The Constitution also places important limits on conditions of confinement and treat颅ment of immigrant detainees, who are afforded the same rights as pre-trial detainees in the criminal system. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment of con颅victed prisoners鈥� protections that are extended to pre-trial criminal detainees under the 14th Amendment. Immigration detention facilities are therefore governed by the Eighth Amendment鈥檚 prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, including restrictions on the use of solitary confinement and requirements to guarantee detainees鈥� safety and to provide humane conditions with respect to clothing, shelter and food.

Likewise, immigrant detention facilities are bound by Eighth Amendment require颅ments to provide adequate medical, mental health and dental care. Detention centers must ensure that they are not deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of immigrant detain颅ees. They must also ensure that officers avoid excessive use of force against detainees. Substantive due process requires immigrants to be free from gross physical abuse at the hands of state or federal officers.

Immigrant detention facilities must abide by First Amendment protections as well, including detainees鈥� right to free exercise of religion. It is also worth noting that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) does not apply to immigrant detainees, which means immi颅grant detainees do not need to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing claims in federal court regarding conditions of confinement.

Detention standards

Immigrant detention facilities are governed by standards that address the treatment of detainees, services and facility operations. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) currently relies on three different sets of detention standards: the National Detention Standards 2000 (NDS), the Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2008 (PBNDS 2008) and the Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011 (PBNDS 2011), which differ in content.

The NDS, PBNDS 2008 and PBNDS 2011 include, respectively, 38, 41, and 43 sets of stan颅dards. Most advocates consider the PBNDS 2011 to be the most specific requirements for detention facilities. These standards lack regulatory force but are enforceable as part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contracts with detention facilities.

All ICE-owned facilities are governed by PBNDS 2011. Contract detention facilities 鈥� including all facilities in this investigation 鈥� are bound by different versions of detention standards. The facilities have incorporated different detention standards into their contracts at different times, which means that there is no consistent national standard for all facilities.

ICE and its contractors have resisted requests and attempts to make detention facility contracts and inspection reports publicly available, which has made it difficult to determine exactly which standards apply to various facilities at this time.

As a result, advocacy groups have been forced to file Freedom of Information Act requests and sue the government for release of these documents. Our analysis of applicable contract standards for each facility investigated is based on the most recently available public infor颅mation released as a result of such efforts by the National Immigrant Justice Center and Syracuse University鈥檚 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

ICE has stated that it 鈥渉as begun implementing PBNDS 2011 across its [contract] deten颅tion facilities, with priority initially given to facilities housing the largest populations of ICE detainees.鈥� Without additional current information regarding these government contracts, however, it is unclear which facilities are governed by which standards at this time.

The PBNDS 2011 provides standards that address the treatment of detainees, services, and facility operations. In our investigation, we examined specific conditions of confinement that suggested violations of standards related to medical care, use of force and restraints; sex颅ual abuse and assault, disciplinary systems; special management units; holding rooms; hunger strikes; grievance systems; staff-detainee communication, food service; per颅sonal hygiene; religious practices; telephone access; visitation; law libraries and legal materials; and detainee transfers.

A summary of requirements under PBNDS 2011 for areas where our investigation sug颅gested a violation of the standards can be found in a separate appendix in this report (a com颅plete annotated list of PBNDS 2011 requirements is available upon request).

Credits

Author Eunice Hyunhye Cho

Co-Author Paromita Shah

Editors Lisa Graybill, Jamie Kizzire

Design Director Russell Estes

Senior Designer Valerie Downes

Project Staff

澳彩开奖

Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Lisa Graybill

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild

Julie Mao, Paromita Shah, Sejal Zota

National Day Laborer Organizing Network/Adelante Alabama Worker Center

Jessica Vosburgh

Adelante research intern

Smriti Krishnan

Photos

cover Detention Watch Network

page 6 Detention Watch Network

page 9 Miguel Carpizo/Adelante Alabama Worker Center

page 24 Women鈥檚 Refugee Commission/Katharina Obser

page 31 David Noriega/BuzzFeed News

page 39 Detention Watch Network

page 41 Detention Watch Network

page 49 Detention Watch Network

page 55 Hannah Rappleye/Detention Watch Network

page 58 Hannah Rappleye/Detention Watch Network

Acknowledgments

The project staff would like to thank the many brave individuals in detention who shared their time and stories. This report would not have been possible without their participation.

Special thanks to Izabel Blankenship, Gloria Lima and Vania Salgar of the 澳彩开奖 for their enthusiastic administrative assistance and translation skills.

We offer our deep gratitude to the following pro bono attorneys, law professors and students, and legal assistants who conducted detainee interviews.

Pro bono law firms

Alston & Bird, LLP

Elizabeth Clark, Javarus Gresham, Hillary Li, Cheryl Naja, Courtney Quiros, Bo Uuganbayar

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP

Tamara Caldas, James Farris

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, LLP

Aileen Bleach, James Lamar Cline Jr., John Fleming, Joshua Jacobson, Laura Liles, Peter Szermeta

Troutman Sanders LLP

Martin Bock, Whitney Garrett, Terri Hendley, Molly Scott, Moses Tincher, Melissa Trimble

Law school professors and students

American University, Washington College of Law

Jayesh Rathod, Michael Craig, Jessica Gicherman, Kathryn Kimball, Daniel Schneider

Emory University School of Law: Maritza Badio

Florida Coastal School of Law: Anny Leon Harbison, Anique Samuel

John Marshall Law School: Jane Maria McCoy, Sofia Sanclemente

Loyola University New Orleans College of Law: Rashim Ditta

Stanford Law School: Yvette Borja, Yulya Goptarenko, Lindsey Jackson, Elena Mercado

University of Alabama School of Law: Akeisha Anderson, Ashley Austin, Shannon Auvil, Joseph Florence, William Lee Gilmer, Maria Gray, Frances Isbell, John Lynn, Jilisa Milton, Austin Smith

University of Florida Levin College of Law: Lauryn Fabrizio, Katrina Hamburg, Katherine Johnson, Amanda Schneider

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge

Claudia de la Rosa-Fuller, Claudia Marcela Hernandez

Detention Watch Network

Gabriela Benitez, Hataipreuk Dawy Rkasnuam

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild

Julie Mao, Paromita Shah

New Orleans Worker Center for Racial Justice

Sophie Ashley

澳彩开奖

Alia Al-Khatib, Kerry Battenfield, Cheyenne Blackburn, Shelby Calambokidis, Martha Carol, Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Phillip Ensler, Cindy Escoto, Eileen Espinal, Jenna Finkle, Lisa Graybill, Sophia Gurule, Carmen Martinez, Quisha Mallette, Andrew McDaniel, Camille McDorman, Laura Rivera, Rae Shih, Claire Shimberg, Alyssa Telander, Corinne Waite, Lucy Zhou

Transgender Law Center

Everrett Arthur, Sylara Cruz, S. Asa King

The following individuals and organizations offered valuable support for our work during the project:

Alabama

Katherine Weathers of Etowah Visitation Project; Shut Down Etowah Coalition

Florida

Gladys Lane of Baker Interfaith Friends; Rebecca Sharpless of the University of Miami School of Law; Erica Curran of Florida Coastal School of Law; American Immigration Lawyers Association-South Florida Chapter

Georgia

P.J. Edwards and Amilcar Valencia of El Refugio Ministries; Adelina Nicholls and Gina Perez of the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights; the Georgia Immigration Working Group; the American Immigration Lawyers Association-Georgia/Alabama Chapter

Louisiana

Jeremy Jong of Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge; Hiroko Kusuda of Loyola University New Orleans College of Law; Jennifer Rizzo-Choi of the Pro Bono Project; Fernando Lopez of the New Orleans Workers鈥� Center for Racial Justice

We would also like to thank Annette Bernhardt of the UC Berkeley Labor Center, CIVIC, Detention Watch Network, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and the National Immigrant Justice Center for their support.