The U.S. Immigration Crisis and a Call for the Church's Lifeworld Politics: Why Should Hauerwas Collaborate with Habermas on the U.S. Immigration Crisis?

This article addresses the influence of economic inequality on immigration detention. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detains roughly 350,000 migrants each year and maintains more than 30,000 beds each day. This massive detention system raises issues of economic power and powerlessness. This article connects, for the first time, the influence of economic inequality on system-wide immigration detention policy as well as on individual detention decisions. The article begins with a description of the systemic impact that for-profit prisons have had on the federal immigration detention system, by promoting wide-scale detention. The resulting expansion of detention has led to ever-increasing profitability for the private for-profit prison sector, which allows the companies to exercise even more influence over policymakers to achieve yet higher levels of detention. The influence of wealthy private prison corporations also affects the very nature of immigration detention, leading to the use of jail-like facilities that are the product offered by the private prison industry. The article then describes the mechanisms by which economic inequality dictates the likelihood and length of detention in individual cases. The detention or release decisions made by DHS in individual cases must account for the need to keep numerous detention beds full to satisfy the contracts made with powerful private prison companies. DHS regularly sets bond amounts at levels that are not correlated to flight risk or danger, but rather to the length of time that the individual must be held in detention to keep the available space full. The article presents data, obtained from immigration authorities, regarding detention and bond patterns at a specific detention center that demonstrate this point. The research finds an inverse relationship between the number of newly arriving immigrants in the detention center and the bond amounts set by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). During times when new arrivals were few, the amount required to be released from detention on bond was high; during times when there were many new arrivals, bond amounts were reduced or set at zero. The article also presents another way in which economic inequality affects the likelihood of detention at the individual level. Release and detention are largely controlled through the use of monetary bond requirements, which must be paid in full. The regular use of financial bonds as the exclusive mechanism for release means that those migrants who are most able to pay are most likely to be released, without regard to their likelihood of absconding or endangering the community. Wealth thus determines detention rather than an individualized determination of the necessity of depriving an individual of liberty. The article urges that the role of economic inequality in immigration detention raises troubling issues of democratic governance and the commodification of traditional governmental functions. The current system also leads to an unjustifiable redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. Looking at immigration detention through the lens of economic inequality offers new lines of theoretical inquiry into immigration detention. It connects the discussion of immigration detention to scholarly critiques of for-profit prisons and the privatization of state security functions more generally. It also brings a new perspective to prior work in the immigration and criminal justice contexts, questioning the fairness and utility of requiring payment of monetary bonds to obtain liberty from detention. The article concludes with recommendations for reform. These reforms would help to sideline the influence of economic inequality in immigration detention decision making.

This article addresses the influence of economic inequality on immigration detention. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detains roughly 350,000 migrants each year and maintains more than 30,000 beds each day. This massive detention system raises issues of economic power and powerlessness. This article connects, for the first time, the influence of economic inequality on system-wide immigration detention policy as well as on individual detention decisions. The article begins with a description of the systemic impact that for-profit prisons have had on the federal immigration detention system, by promoting wide-scale detention. The resulting expansion of detention has led to ever-increasing profitability for the private for-profit prison sector, which allows the companies to exercise even more influence over policymakers to achieve yet higher levels of detention. The influence of wealthy private prison corporations also affects the very nature of immigration detention, leading to the use of jail-like facilities that are the product offered by the private prison industry. The article then describes the mechanisms by which economic inequality dictates the likelihood and length of detention in individual cases. The detention or release decisions made by DHS in individual cases must account for the need to keep numerous detention beds full to satisfy the contracts made with powerful private prison companies. DHS regularly sets bond amounts at levels that are not correlated to flight risk or danger, but rather to the length of time that the individual must be held in detention to keep the available space full. The article presents data, obtained from immigration authorities, regarding detention and bond patterns at a specific detention center that demonstrate this point. The research finds an inverse relationship between the number of newly arriving immigrants in the detention center and the bond amounts set by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). During times when new arrivals were few, the amount required to be released from detention on bond was high; during times when there were many new arrivals, bond amounts were reduced or set at zero. The article also presents another way in which economic inequality affects the likelihood of detention at the individual level. Release and detention are largely controlled through the use of monetary bond requirements, which must be paid in full. The regular use of financial bonds as the exclusive mechanism for release means that those migrants who are most able to pay are most likely to be released, without regard to their likelihood of absconding or endangering the community. Wealth thus determines detention rather than an individualized determination of the necessity of depriving an individual of liberty. The article urges that the role of economic inequality in immigration detention raises troubling issues of democratic governance and the commodification of traditional governmental functions. The current system also leads to an unjustifiable redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. Looking at immigration detention through the lens of economic inequality offers new lines of theoretical inquiry into immigration detention. It connects the discussion of immigration detention to scholarly critiques of for-profit prisons and the privatization of state security functions more generally. It also brings a new perspective to prior work in the immigration and criminal justice contexts, questioning the fairness and utility of requiring payment of monetary bonds to obtain liberty from detention. The article concludes with recommendations for reform. These reforms would help to sideline the influence of economic inequality in immigration detention decision making.

U nlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the US Immigrant Detention System addresses one of the most troubled features of the US immigration system and highlights the need for fundamental changes to it. The report comes six years since the inception of the Obama administration’s detention reform initiative. In the interim, the number of immigrant detainees per year has risen to more than 400,000, the administration has opened immense new family detention centers, and the overwhelming majority of persons in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have remained in prisons, jails and other secure facilities where they are subject to standards designed for criminal defendants and, in many ways, treated more harshly than criminals. The report’s overarching recommendation is that the US immigrant detention system be dismantled and replaced with a network of supervised release, case management, and community support programs, designed to ensure court appearances. It recognizes that detention may be necessary for short periods and in certain cases, but it rejects detention as a central immigrant “management” tool, and argues that detention should only be used as a last resort if less harmful strategies and programs—viewed on a continuum beginning with the least restrictive and moving to release programs with different levels of supervision, monitoring, and support—cannot reasonably ensure court appearances or (in rare cases) protect the public. It opposes the detention of pregnant and nursing women, bona fide asylum seekers, the very ill, the disabled, the elderly, and other vulnerable persons. It calls for the substantial contraction of detention facilities and “bed space.” As the first step in this process, the report urges Congress to commission a comprehensive study on the benefits, challenges, cost, and time frame for creating a civil immigration detention system. It also proposes that the administration create a full menu of court compliance programs, with varying degrees of supervision, reporting, oversight and monitoring. In order to realize this vision, it offers several additional recommendations. T he Obama administration should desist from using detention as a “deterrent” to illegal migration and de facto refugee flows . DHS should close its family detention centers in favor of community-based supervision and support programs for immigrant families. The vast majority of families would appear for removal proceedings with appropriate orientation, supervision and community support. The growth of an immense family detention infrastructure will not (as intended) deter imperiled persons from seeking refuge in the United States, but will invariably lead to the return of de facto refugees to their persecutors in violation of international law. C ongress should pass legislation to repeal mandatory detention in all but the most egregious criminal and national security cases . US mandatory detention laws cover lawful permanent residents, asylum seekers, petty offenders, and persons with US families and other enduring ties to the United States. By definition, they prevent individualized release determinations based on family ties, employment, housing, criminal history, and other factors. In the overwhelming majority of cases, immigration judges or judicial officers should be permitted to consider the full range of equities and release options for persons in removal proceedings, whether formal court proceedings or non-court, administrative and summary processes. P r ivate corporations should have a more limited, regulated and modest role in a shrinking detention system . The federal government has increasingly ceded responsibility for detention to entities whose loyalties run to their shareholders, not the common good. By some estimates, for-profit prison corporations administer more than 60 percent of the “beds” in the US immigrant detention system. Rather than expanding its reliance on for-profit prison companies, the federal government ought to decrease the use of detention, develop greater government expertise, and strengthen oversight of private contractors. D etention reform should include a significant expansion of Alternative to Detention programs (ATD) . Detention should only be used sparingly, for brief periods (when necessary), and as a last resort when less restrictive strategies cannot reasonably ensure appearances during the adjudication and removal process and cannot protect the public. ATD programs can offer effective, humane alternatives to detention. However, they should not be used to expand detention capacity. Like detention, intensive reporting and monitoring programs can stigmatize and incapacitate persons. If necessary, ATD programs should be treated as a form of custody, which would open them to mandatory detainees. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should undertake a comprehensive analysis of its information systems . The proposed review should identify the information ICE tracks on those who are subject to its custody; how, when, and which officials collect, enter, and can access this information; its quality control procedures; and the accessibility of information to congressional oversight committees, government watchdog agencies, relevant ICE officials, and the public. D etained immigrants—those who do not qualify for release or ATD programs—should be held in non-penal settings which reflect the conditions of normal life to the extent feasible . DHS should provide generous access to international organizations, faith-based groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the press, to all of its facilities. Immigration judges should adjudicate removal cases now handled through administrative, informal and non-court processes, and should make release and custody determinations soon after their detention for all persons in DHS custody . They should also regularly revisit custody decisions for detainees. However, these responsibilities—added to an immense yearly workload and a daunting backlog of more than 440,000 cases—will require increases in funding and staffing by an order of magnitude. As it stands, the immigration court system receives less than two percent of the combined funding of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE. The cost of “right-sizing” the immigration court system may well be offset by reductions in DHS detention funding and diminished federal court expenses from habeas corpus petitions. U nrepresented, indigent persons in removal proceedings should be provided with legal representation at the government’s expense . As numerous studies have revealed, legal counsel is one of the most important factors, even more important than the strength of the underlying legal claim, in influencing asylum and other case outcomes. Representation also increases court appearance rates and leads to decreased overall costs to the government due to reduced use of detention, more efficient court proceedings, and less frequent placement of the children of detainees in foster care. More importantly, it contributes to the right decisions being made under the law. Migration and Refugee Services of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (MRS/USCCB) and the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) approach the detention of immigrants from a pastoral perspective. Each day US Catholic institutions minister to detained immigrants, represent them in removal proceedings, tend to the material and spiritual needs of their families, and witness the pain of traumatized children and the anguish of divided families. Because of the detention system’s devastating effect on the lives of millions of persons each year, MRS/USCCB and CMS strongly support the transformation of this system and urge the Obama administration and Congress to proceed with the proposed reforms with all deliberate haste.

Policy Statement on the Incarceration of Undocumented Migrant Families: Society for Community Research and Action Division 27 of the American Psychological Association.

The impact of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on immigrant health: Perceptions of immigrants in Everett, Massachusetts, USA

Permanent Injury Beyond Medical Intervention: Disguising Death in U.S. Immigrant Detention

The day-to-day behaviors of undocumented immigrants are significantly affected when local law enforcement officials do the work of federal immigration enforcement. One such behavior, which has been widely discussed in debates over so-called sanctuary policies, is that undocumented immigrants are less likely to report crimes to the police when local law enforcement officials work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on federal immigration enforcement. However, the mechanism that explains this relationship of decreased trust in law enforcement has not yet been systematically tested. Do undocumented immigrants become less trusting of police officers and sheriffs when local law enforcement officials work with ICE on federal immigration enforcement? To answer this, we embedded an experiment that varied the interior immigration enforcement context in a survey (n = 512) drawn from a probability-based sample of undocumented immigrants. When local law enforcement officials work with ICE on federal immigration enforcement, respondents are statistically significantly less likely to say that they trust that police officers and sheriffs will keep them, their families, and their communities safe; will protect the confidentiality of witnesses to crimes even if they are undocumented; will protect the rights of all people equally, including undocumented immigrants; and will protect undocumented immigrants from abuse or discrimination.

Abstract: State violence in the so-called United States impacting undocumented immigrants living under the construction of (il)legality calls for a decolonial feminist enactment of psychosocial research. This article presents a multi-scalar analysis of the embodied aftermath of state violence, enacted through the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) practice of state disappearances, on two undocumented Latina immigrants. Centering on decolonial feminisms and drawing on liberation psychology and intersectionality, this study investigates the embodied sequelae of living undocumented under the terror of ICE. This study undertakes a secondary analysis of two interviews that were selected from a larger database of in-depth interviews (N = 39). The two stories were selected considering gender and explicitness of the embodied aftermath of psychosocial torture by ICE. The data was gathered in Austin, Texas in 2019, marking a year after the two largest ICE raids in recent history which together resulted in the arrests of at least 304 Latinx immigrants in Central, South, and North Texas. ICE terror has embodied, affective, and material consequences on those who are subjected to such violence; therefore, a decolonial feminist analysis about the embodied impacts of state violence and its sequela contribute to understandings of decolonial feminist enactment of qualitative analytic methods in psychology.

This study describes the deaths of individuals in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention between FY2021-2023, updating a report from FY2018-2020, which identified an increased death rate amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Data was extracted from death reports published online by ICE. Causes of deaths were recorded, and death rates per 100,000 admissions were calculated using population statistics reported by ICE. Reports of individuals released from ICE custody just prior to death were also identified and described. There were 12 deaths reported from FY2021-2023, compared to 38 deaths from FY2018-2020. The death rate per 100,000 admissions in ICE detention was 3.251 in FY2021, 0.939 in FY2022, and 1.457 in FY2023, compared with a pandemic-era high of 10.833 in FY2020. Suicide caused 1 of 12 (8.3%) deaths in FY2021-2023 compared with 9 of 38 (23.7%) deaths in FY2018-2020. COVID-19 was contributory in 3 of 11 (25%) medical deaths in FY2021-2023, compared with 8 of 11 (72.7%) in the COVID-era months of FY2020 (p = 0.030). Overall, 4 of 11 (36.3%) medical deaths in FY2021-2023 resulted from cardiac arrest in detention facilities, compared with 6 of 29 (20.3%) in FY2018-2020. Three deaths of hospitalized individuals released from ICE custody with grave prognoses were identified. The death rate among individuals in ICE custody decreased in FY2021-2023, which may be explained in part by the release of vulnerable individuals following recent federal legal determinations (e.g., Fraihat v. ICE). Identification of medically complex individuals released from ICE custody just prior to death and not reported by ICE indicates that reported deaths underestimate total deaths associated with ICE detention. Attentive monitoring of mortality outcomes following release from ICE custody is warranted.

Research ObjectiveSince 2017, intensified deportation efforts against immigrants have increased the population in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention nationally. ICE assumes responsibility for the health and safety of individuals in their custody for the duration of detention, as mandated by their Performance‐Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS). Following the death of an individual in detention, the ICE Office of Detention Oversight produces Detainee Death Reviews (DDR). DDRs evaluate circumstances surrounding the death and determine whether PBNDS were violated. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of ways in which health systems factors may have contributed to deaths in ICE detention facilities, we systematically analyzed the text of 55 DDRs conducted between 2011 and 2018.Study DesignA total of 55 DDRs from 2011 to 2018 were obtained via a combination of the Official Department of Homeland Security ICE Freedom of Information Act website and from civil rights organizations. Data was extracted from each DDR using a standardized tool. Data extracted described the deceased's demographic information, immigration, criminal, and medical histories, objective medical data, and any PBNDS violations identified and acknowledged in each death report.Population StudiedIndividuals who died while in ICE detention.Principal FindingsThe research team successfully obtained DDRs for 55 (92%) of 69 reported deaths5–7 among individuals in ICE detention between 2011 and 2018. Individuals who died were predominantly male (86%); averaging 42.7 years of age at the time of death. The deceased had lived in the United States for a mean of 15.8 years prior to entering ICE detention and spent a median of 39 days (range 1–1865; mean 120) in ICE custody prior to death. Individuals who died had relatively low burdens of pre‐existing disease as illuminated by Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores of 0 (33%) or 1–2 (27%). Markedly abnormal vital signs were documented prior to 51% (28) of deaths, with 71% (20) of deaths preceded by abnormal vital signs during multiple encounters prior to death or hospital transfer. Most deaths (n = 47, 85%) were attributed to medical causes, while 8 (15%) were attributed to suicide. None of the individuals who committed suicide were on suicide watch at the time of death; though half had been at some time during their detention. Among 55 death summaries, a total of 86 counts of PBNDS deficiencies were noted across 7 categories. Overall, 43 (78%) of DDRs identified PBNDS deficiencies related to Medical Care, with a mean of 3.16 deficiencies related to Medical Care per case (Range 1–13).ConclusionsFindings suggest that substandard medical care occurring within ICE detention facilities may have contributed to or failed to prevent deaths of multiple individuals in ICE detention between 2011 and 2018. Additionally, the detention death review process found the majority of detention facilities had violated ICE's own medical standards repeatedly.Implications for Policy or PracticeThese results highlight the need for further independent investigations into medical and psychiatric care provided to individuals in ICE detention facilities, and greater mechanisms for external accountability.Primary Funding SourceHaas JR Foundation.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities house thousands of undocumented immigrants in environments discordant with the public health recommendations to reduce the transmission of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Using ICE detainee population data obtained from the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) website as of March 2, 2020, we implemented a simple stochastic susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered model to estimate the rate of COVID-19 transmission within 111 ICE detention facilities and then examined impacts on regional hospital intensive care unit (ICU) capacity. Models considered three scenarios of transmission (optimistic, moderate, pessimistic) over 30-, 60-, and 90-day time horizons across a range of facility sizes. We found that 72% of individuals are expected to be infected by day 90 under the optimistic scenario (R0 = 2.5), while nearly 100% of individuals are expected to be infected by day 90 under a more pessimistic (R0 = 7) scenario. Although asynchronous outbreaks are more likely, day 90 estimates provide an approximation of total positive cases after all ICE facility outbreaks. We determined that, in the most optimistic scenario, coronavirus outbreaks among a minimum of 65 ICE facilities (59%) would overwhelm ICU beds within a 10-mile radius and outbreaks among a minimum of 8 ICE facilities (7%) would overwhelm local ICU beds within a 50-mile radius over a 90-day period, provided every ICU bed was made available for sick detainees. As policymakers seek to rapidly implement interventions that ensure the continued availability of life-saving medical resources across the USA, they may be overlooking the pressing need to slow the spread of COVID-19 infection in ICE’s detention facilities. Preventing the rapid spread necessitates intervention measures such as granting ICE detainees widespread release from an unsafe environment by returning them to the community.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11524-020-00441-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Research SummaryThe increase in immigration enforcement during the past two decades has led to a larger number of immigrants being detained in the U.S. criminal justice system. Using data from the 2006–2018 Annual Survey of Jails, we examine the impact of immigrants being held for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the conditions in U.S. jails. We find that increases in the number of detainees held for ICE are related to higher noncitizen jailed populations that are not offset by reductions in their citizen counterparts, likely contributing to worse confinement conditions. This is reflected in the higher levels of overcrowding and understaffing, as well as in the longer stays in jail and more physical assaults associated with a larger number of ICE detainees. These findings prove robust to using data on two local interior immigration enforcement programs responsible for the growing number of immigrant detainees in local jails—287(g) agreements and Secure Communities—as instruments to address the endogeneity of the number of ICE detainees with respect to jail conditions. The results are driven by slightly over half of U.S. counties located either along the United States–Mexico border or in states with a large or fast‐growing immigrant population.Policy ImplicationsAs immigrant detention becomes more entrenched in the U.S. criminal justice system, understanding the connection between intensified immigration enforcement, immigrant detention, and the conditions of U.S. jails is well warranted. Our findings suggest that for jails already operating at or above capacity, immigrant detention may pose significant concerns for the safety and well‐being of all incarcerated individuals. Furthermore, our results have implications for the criminalization of unauthorized entry into the United States. Making immigration violations a criminal offense has resulted in the development of an inhumane immigration detention system motivated by profit.

Victims or Criminals? Discretion, Sorting, and Bureaucratic Culture in the US Immigration System

BackgroundMany civil liberties organizations have raised concerns that substandard medical care in United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities have led to preventable deaths. The 2018 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill required ICE to make public all reports regarding in-custody deaths within 90 days beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. Accordingly, ICE has released death reports following each in-custody death since April of 2018. This study describes characteristics of deaths among individuals in ICE detention following the FY2018 mandate.MethodsData was extracted from death reports published by ICE following the FY2018 mandate. Causes of death were categorized as suicide or medical, and medical deaths as COVID-19-related or not. Characteristics were compared between medical and suicide deaths, and among medical deaths between COVID-19-related and non-COVID-19-related deaths. Additionally, death rates per person-year and per 100,000 admissions were calculated for FY2018, 2019, and 2020 using methods from prior work evaluating deaths among detained immigrants in the United States.ResultsSince April 2018, 35 individuals have died in ICE detention. The death rate per 100,000 admissions in ICE detention was 2.303 in FY2018, 1.499 in FY2019, and 10.833 in FY2020. Suicide by hanging was identified as the cause of death in 9 (25.7%), and medical causes in the remaining 26 (74.3%). Among 26 deaths attributable to medical causes, 8 (30.8%) were attributed to COVID-19, representing 72.7% of 11 deaths occurring since April 2020.ConclusionsThe death rate among individuals in ICE detention is increasing amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Potentially preventable causes of death including COVID-19 and suicide contribute to at least half of recent deaths. Findings suggest that individuals detained by ICE may benefit from improved psychiatric care and prevention measures to combat suicide, as well as increased infection control efforts to reduce mortality associated with COVID-19.

Concerns have been raised that substandard medical care has contributed to deaths in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities. After each in-custody death, ICE produces detainee death reviews, which describe the circumstances of the death and determine whether ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) were violated. To describe factors associated with deaths in ICE detention facilities. This case series used data extracted from detainee death reviews of deaths among individuals detained in ICE facilities for whom these reviews were available from January 2011 to December 2018. All individuals were in the custody of ICE at the time of death. Data including demographic information, medical histories, recorded medical data, and reported violations of PBNDS were systematically extracted and summarized. Among 71 individuals who died in an ICE detention facility during the study period, detainee death reviews were available for 55 (77.5%). Most were male (47 [85.5%]), and the mean (SD) age at death was 42.7 (11.5) years. Individuals resided in the US for a mean (SD) of 15.8 (13.2) years before detention and were in ICE custody for a median of 39 days (interquartile range, 9-76 days) before death. Most had low burdens of preexisting disease, with 18 (32.7%) having a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 0 and 15 (27.3%) having a score of 1 or 2. A total of 47 deaths (85.5%) were attributed to medical causes and 8 (14.5%) to suicide. Markedly abnormal vital signs were documented in the death reviews before 29 of 47 deaths from medical causes (61.7%), and 21 of these 29 deaths (72.4%) were preceded by abnormal vital signs during 2 or more encounters with ICE personnel before death or terminal hospital transfer. Overall, 43 detainee death reviews (78.2%) identified PBNDS violations related to medical care, with a mean (SD) of 3.2 (3.0) deficiencies per detainee death review. In this case series, deaths in ICE detention facilities from 2011 to 2018 occurred primarily among young men with low burdens of preexisting disease. Markedly abnormal vital signs preceded death or hospital transfer for most nonsuicide deaths. The PBNDS were violated in most detainee death reviews. These results suggest that additional oversight and external evaluation of practices related to medical and psychiatric care within ICE facilities are needed.