In the last fiscal year, Congress funded ICE’s average daily population at 40,520. Under the agreement reached by Democrats and Republicans this week, the administration will get funding for an average daily population of 45,274 in the current fiscal year, congressional aides say. ICE currently holds over 49,000 people in custody.
Democrats have pointed to the possibility that the negotiated number means ICE will have to reduce detention to make the new average work. Republicans have countered that ICE has the ability to transfer money, as it has been doing, to maintain a higher level of beds. Democrats aren’t disputing that they can transfer money, though they note that money will have to come from another account.
The complexities led to varying takes on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers disagreeing on whether the deal increased or decreased the number of detention beds.
Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R., S.D.) estimated that once ICE has transferred money, it could fund up to “58,000 or thereabouts” beds. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) argued the agreed-to number of beds was actually a reduction. “They are pretty much at 45,000 or so,” she said.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.), a hard-liner on illegal immigration, made the GOP’s initial goal his baseline. Comparatively, “it’s less than that,” he said. “It’s about 7,000 beds less.”
Pro- and anti-immigration activists both saw problems with the deal. Sandra Cordero, director of Families Belong Together, said the deal would keep detention levels steady and was “funneling more money to agencies that ripped thousands of children from their parents’ arms.” Mark Krikorian, head of the Center for Immigration Studies, said the reduction in ICE detention capacity “more than cancels out any benefit from that small amount of extra fencing.
Others saw the result as more clear-cut.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), the Senate majority leader, claimed victory on the issue and applauded Democrats for abandoning what he called “extreme positions,” including “the idea that we should impose a hard, statutory cap on ICE detainees.”
Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), a member of the 17-lawmaker group that negotiated the border deal, said Tuesday the Democrats didn’t get everything they had hoped for on beds, a reflection of GOP control of the Senate and White House.
“We had hoped to not only stop the grand and glorious wall, paid for by Mexico, but also to deal with detention beds. I don’t know what the final wording is on this,” Mr. Durbin said, but “we wanted to address both, and it became more difficult when we realized the political reality.”
**********************************************
I recognize that the Dems couldn’t solve this problem in these particular negotiations. That’s particularly true because, as aptly noted by Senator Durbin, the GOP holds power in two of the three political entitles of government.
However, let’s not forget that “behind the numbers” are real human beings, not just objects like “beds” or “bed numbers” — terms used to dehumanize the victims and obscure the true nasty nature of DHS “civil” detention. Most of them are not serious criminals and there might not be an “actual suspected terrorist” in DHS detention today. Indeed, it would probably be “gross negligence” to entrust a real suspected terrorist to DHS detention. If given a reasonable chance to get a lawyer, understand the system, and prepare a case, the vast majority of those now detained would appear for their Immigration Hearings, particularly if given an opportunity to be released on ankle monitors or other “alternatives to detention.”
While in the “Gulag,” these individuals have their rights to fairness and Due Process impaired, suffer from substandard conditions (while private contractors who run much of DHS detention profit), and are often duressed into giving up valuable rights and opportunities to apply for relief and “taking removal” just to escape from the intentionally coercive situation that DHS creates.
Yes, a much more limited amount of detention, 15% to 25% of the current number of “beds” (actually humans held in the “Gulag”) might be necessary to protect us from the relatively small number of dangerous individuals and those likely to abscond.
Nevertheless, the “New American Gulag” as now constituted by Trump and enthusiastically supported by the GOP is both unnecessary and a total disgrace to our national reputation and humanity. So, the Dems should “keep at it” for the next budget cycle and continue educating the American public about the useless cruelty, intentional dehumanization, wasted taxpayer money, and questionable contractual arrangements involved in promoting this human rights abomination. It’s also a massive (and expensive) failure as a “deterrent” which, for the most part, is its real purpose.
It’s possible that the Article III Courts eventually will step in. As noted previously in this blog, the Administration appears headed for a “big time” loss on the constitutionality of indefinite detention in the 9thCircuit. However, unless Chief Justice Roberts “gets religion” and joins the liberals, the Supremes are likely to sell out the Constitution on this one. After all, none of the “Conservative Justices” are in unconstitutional indefinite “civil” detention right now. But, life being what it is, they might not want to be so smugly tone-deaf about caving to the Executive on issues affecting life and liberty. Who knows, maybe someday someone they are related to, know personally, or love will be arbitrarily tossed in the Gulag and have the keys thrown away.
Whether it happens now or long after I’m gone, history will judge the GOP and their enablers harshly for this intentional and thinly disguised racially motivated degradation of humanity. It will have adverse consequences for our country and the world for many generations to come.
Therefore, it’s important to continue “making the record” and never letting the GOP off the hook for what they are doing (although, I will concede that the Dems have also gone through periods of infatuation with the idea of “detention as a deterrent.” Won’t work, never has, never will.)
And, this is from someone, me, who spent part of my earlier career defending, with mixed results, the “Legacy INS’s” right to detain individuals, sometimes indefinitely.
PWS
02-14-19
