Why the Trump Administration Is Treating Immigration Detainees Like Criminals

ICE plans to house 1,600 detainees in federal prisons

Suspected illegal border crossers at Customs and Border Protection headquarters in Tucson, Arizona, in 2012. Ross D. Franklin/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In an unexpected and unusual move, Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it plans to transfer 1,600 of its detainees to federal prisons. The agency says a surge in illegal border crossings and the Department of Justice’s new zero-tolerance policy has increased the demand for detention space. 

In an email, ICE spokeswoman Danielle Bennett says the move is “intended to be a temporary measure until ICE can obtain additional long-term contracts for new detention facilities or until the surge in illegal border crossings subsides.” Detainees will be held in five federal prisons in California, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Arizona. 

Prison-guard union officials in California, Texas, and Washington told Reuters they had little time to prepare for the new inmates. One union president at a facility in Victorville, California, which will hold 1,000 detainees, has raised concerns about whether the prison has enough staff members to handle the new detainees. Immigration advocates have also criticized the decision. “Our federal prisons are set up to detain the worst of the worst. They should not be used for immigration purposes,” Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, told Reuters. 

Many of the detainees ICE is sending to prisons are waiting for immigration or asylum hearings and not facing criminal charges for illegal entry. To get a better understanding of why the Trump administration is sending them to prisons designed to hold criminals, I spoke with Margo Schlanger, a law professor at the University of Michigan and former head of the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties under the Obama administration. She suspects the move may have less to do with zero-tolerance policies and more to do with the surge of immigration cases as a result of ICE arrests inside the country.

Mother Jones: What is striking about this decision? 

Margo Schlanger: Immigration detention is civil—the point is to hold people until they can have their cases processed and heard. So putting people in prison when they’re in that situation is a very big statement: that the administration isn’t thinking about immigration detention as civil. They’re thinking about people who are fighting their immigration cases as criminals, and that is really problematic. 

These are largely not dangerous people. Only about a third of them at this point have a criminal record, and often, they’re from years and years ago. So we’re not talking about a population that is appropriate for criminal confinement. In addition, it’s not illegal to fight your case: When you come and you apply for asylum, there’s nothing illegal about that. The idea that people in those circumstances need to be detained at all seems to me wrong. But certainly that they need to be detained in a prison that’s intended for criminal confinement—it’s just wrong. 

MJ: Immigration detainees have been kept in local jails before. What makes keeping them in federal prisons different? 

MS: When ICE detains people in local jails, it does so with a contract and a set of detention standards that are supposed to apply. Jails are often bad places for immigrants to be—they are very confined, and they can often have bad conditions. It’s even possible that federal prisons may have better conditions of confinement than some jails. That said, I would be very interested to know how immigrant detainees are or are not being separated from people in prison. I would be worried about staff that’s trained and used to dealing with criminal convicts being asked to deal with a civilly confined population—and if they’re able to make that transition. If [the Bureau of Prisons is] using its ordinary standards, those standards were designed for criminal confinement. In a prison, some of the rules and conditions probably serve punitive purposes, and if those rules and conditions are applied to immigrant detainees, that could violate the due process clause. 

MJ: ICE attributes this decision to a surge in border crossings and its new zero-tolerance policy. What are some other factors at play? 

MS: The impact of zero-tolerance is really unclear. The current government policy is to prosecute people who are crossing the border. If they are prosecuting them, then they are facing criminal trials and, if they’re found guilty, serving criminal time. If anything, that should lessen the need for ICE detention; they’re not in ICE custody at all, but they’re in DOJ custody. It’s possible in the future these people could come into ICE detention, but for now, that’s not driving the numbers. 

Another factor is interior enforcement. If ICE is arresting people indiscriminately in the interior, then they’re arresting people who have good defenses in their immigration cases. If you start arresting people who have been here for years, these are going to be people who fight their cases, so that means they’re going to stay in detention longer. So the detention bed space gets used by someone who’s in detention for a long period of time instead of someone who just got here and is quickly getting deported. That strikes me as a plausible explanation. 

MJ: What else should we be taking away from this decision?

MS: I think this is just part and parcel of the Trump administration’s effort to consider the immigration system entirely as a criminal justice system, which it is not and never has been. It’s bad enough that [immigrants] are in places that feel like jails and in some places are jails, but at least many people who go to jails haven’t been convicted of anything—you can think of it as a waiting place where they’re having their status adjudicated. But that’s not what prisons are. Prisons are places for people who have been convicted. We are talking about noncriminal detainees. It’s crossing an important symbolic bridge.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate