In abstract
A doable migrant detention facility inside two hours of San Francisco has some lawmakers involved.
Federal immigration authorities are searching for a possible new detention heart in Northern California, an effort that alarms advocates and a few Democratic state lawmakers as President-elect Donald Trump gears as much as unleash his mass deportation plan.
In August, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a request for info to establish further detention mattress area within the state as different federal companies intensified border enforcement. The trouble started within the wake of the Biden administration’s sweeping asylum banapplied in June, for migrants caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border exterior designated entry factors. Underneath the ban, border brokers can deport such migrants inside hours or days with out contemplating their asylum claims.
Advocates say an enlargement of detention area would give Trump a runway to hold out extra mass deportations in California. Immigrants in counties with extra detention area usually tend to be arrested and detained, in line with analysis by advocacy teams.
Not like in Texas, the place state officers are providing up land to the Trump administration to facilitate mass deportations, California tried to ban new federal immigrant detention facilities from opening through the first Trump administration. The courtroom blocked that, ruling that the state was unconstitutionally overstepping on federal immigration enforcement.
California Legal professional Basic Rob Bonta instructed CalMatters that the state could also be powerless to cease the opportunity of a brand new facility.
ICE’s enlargement plans
Federal paperwork present ICE issued the request for info on Aug. 14. Such requests can pave the way in which for federal contracts, on this case to acquire “available detention facilities for single adult populations (male and female)” in Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, and California. Its request says the amenities ought to every have from 850 to 950 detention beds and “may be publicly or privately owned and publicly or privately operated.”
One of many amenities needs to be inside a two-hour drive of the San Francisco discipline workplace, the paperwork state. The request additionally seeks amenities close to discipline places of work in Phoenix, El Paso, and Seattle.
“ICE has identified a need for immigration detention services within the Western U.S. area of responsibility,” ICE spokesman Richard Beam wrote in an e-mail to CalMatters. “The proposed services are part of ICE’s effort to continually review its detention requirements and explore options that will afford ICE the operational flexibility needed to house the full range of detainees in the agency’s custody.”
At the moment, ICE detains roughly 38,000 individuals daily in about 120 immigration jails throughout the nation. In California, that quantity is just below 3,000 detainees every day, held in six amenities, in line with probably the most just lately accessible immigration knowledge maintained by the Transactional Information Entry Clearinghouse at Syracuse College.
That’s the third-largest inhabitants of detained immigrants within the nation.
Whereas ICE, the federal company accountable for immigration enforcement, owns and operates a really small variety of amenities nationwide, it principally contracts with non-public jail operators corresponding to CoreCivic, GEO Group, and Administration and Coaching Corp. Their detention amenities home 80% of ICE’s detainees. Inventory for CoreCivic and GEO Group soared upon Trump’s win final month.
In California, non-public, for-profit jail firms run all six ICE detention amenities – the Golden State Annex and Mesa Verde detention amenities in Kern County; the Adelanto Detention Facility and Desert View Annex, each in San Bernardino County; the Otay Mesa Detention Heart in San Diego County; and the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in Imperial County.
Throughout all six, the federal authorities has the capability to detain as much as 7,188 individuals statewide.
State Sen. Maria Elena Durazoa Democrat from Los Angeles, mentioned she was involved about the potential financial impacts of ICE having an elevated capability for detention and, subsequently, deportations.
“The expansion of detention in California concerns everyone in our state. Expanding detention correlates with increased ICE raids and family separation, all of which has devastating social and economic impacts for California,” she mentioned. “In addition, these facilities are run by private for-profit companies that consistently place their bottom-line profit above the health and safety of those who work in or are detained in these facilities.”
Advocates argue that detention expansions result in human rights abuses and undermine neighborhood security.
“An expansion of ICE detention operations within the Bay Area and Northern California is going to be part of a reign of terror on our communities the Trump administration is threatening,” mentioned Bree Bernwanger, a senior employees lawyer on the Immigrants’ Rights workforce on the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. “We already know from existing facilities within California that ICE does not and cannot maintain safe and or healthy standards of confinement for people inside.”
The ACLU is suing to study extra concerning the federal company’s expanded detention plans.
Bernwanger was referring to points like complaints of sexually abusive patdowns. Additionally, in 2023, ICE allegedly retaliated towards starvation strikers by storming into their cells, violently dragging them, threatening them with pressured feedings, after which offering meals that was not applicable for breaking a 21-day quick, prompting a medical situation in not less than one inmate, in line with a declare filed by the inmate, who was represented by two advocacy teams.
In August, the civil liberties group launched a 34-page report detailing 485 grievances filed by detainees throughout six immigration detention amenities in California between 2023 and June 2024. These grievances included allegations of hazardous amenities, inhumane therapy, medical neglect, and retaliation.
ICE declined to touch upon the report.
California did not ban for-profit federal detention facilities
In December 2019, California handed a regulation that might have banned non-public immigration detention facilities. It was a part of a wave of resistance by California Democrats to the primary Trump administration. It additionally prohibited the state from utilizing for-profit prisons for any inmates beginning in 2028. The for-profit amenities “contribute to over-incarceration” and “do not reflect our values,” Gov. Gavin Newsom mentioned in an announcement when signing the invoice.
Days earlier than the regulation was set to enter impact, ICE signed new contracts for its amenities in California. The federal ninth Circuit Court docket of Appeals later overturned the state’s ban on non-public prisons.
Bonta, who wrote the unsuccessful ban as an Oakland assemblymember, instructed CalMatters in November that the state may not be capable to cease ICE from opening one other detention facility exterior of San Francisco.
“It’s a matter of federal jurisdiction,” Bonta mentioned. “It’s federal. I disagree, but my office’s disagreement was considered, and the court determined that it was a federal issue.”
