Category: Uncategorized

  • Vigil for Families in Detention

    On Sunday, December 7, at 4 p.m. a peaceful coalition of individuals and groups opposing Willliamson County’s participation in the detention of asylum seekers will gather on the Williamson County Courthouse steps in downtown Georgetown.

    Although federal law requires the “least restrictive setting possible” for immigrant families, in 2006 Williamson County contracted with Corrections Corporation of America, a private for-profit prison company, to incarcerate non-criminal women and children in the T. Don Hutto detention facility in Taylor. The contracts between ICE, Williamson County, and CCA are up for renewal in January.

    Please help us show Williamson County, Homeland Security, and the private prison industry that imprisoning innocent children will no longer be tolerated in the United States of America.

    We will meet in the parking lot on Austin Ave. between 4th and 5th Streets in Georgetown at 3:30 p.m. and walk 3 blocks to the County Courthouse to hear community leaders speak in support of alternatives to the incarceration of families awaiting asylum or immigration hearings.

    There are currently 385 detainees in T. Don Hutto including 92 children. As a result of the lawsuits brought by ACLU and the UT School of Law Immigration Clinic, detainees are now allowed to wear their own clothing. Thanks to a recent intervention by the UT School of Law Immigration Clinic, ICE has also agreed to allow detainees to use phone cards given to them rather than having to buy the cards through CCA.

    If you would like to bring a gift to the vigil, suggestions include new toys in their original packaging, books, music players, music, lotions, shampoos, candy, phone cards, and clothing such as sweaters and warm socks.

    For further information or to sign up to speak, please contact Sherry Dana at sdana787@gmail.com. 512-868-5181

  • Christopher Hughes Verdict: What Would Jane Addams Say?

    Nick Braune
    Mid-Valley Town
    Crier

    by permission

    I admittedly was caught off guard twice over the last week or so. Distracted by the gorgeous fanfare of the international Olympics, I did not expect Georgia to brazenly invade Ossetia. But another thing caught me off guard, right here in Hidalgo County: the conviction of Christopher Hughes.

    Christopher’s conviction was surprising, and depressing. First, he was convicted of killing his mom and got 45 years; secondly, he was 16 when the crime was committed. I think 45 years in prison for something one does at 16 is excessive, nuts, but I admit I still live in the past, when there were proud juvenile courts and some commitment to saving youth from the adult criminal justice system. I know. I live in the years of Jane Addams and the advent of social work, not the fiercely retributive, zero-tolerance, sock-‘em world we live in now.

    Although often a maverick, I am mainstream enough to condemn killing. And if someone kills his mom, I think the state should step in and take appropriate action. But Christopher was not an adult criminal, despite the prosecutor declaring him one; this was a kid in a very troubled moment in his teen years. A father figure in Christopher’s life died of cancer in February, 2007. He was the husband of Laura Doyle, the teen’s mom, and within months Christopher was in police custody.

    The Monitor reported, “In the months after [the father’s] death, the relationship of Laura Doyle and her son quickly grew volatile. Deputies responded to several domestic violence calls at the trailer home they shared, where the sheriffs found mother and son fighting about his drug use and past attempts to steal a family car. In March, Laura Doyle received two years of probation for felony drug possession. She had previously been convicted of reckless conduct, resisting arrest and unlawfully carrying a weapon.”

    February and March must have been insane months for Christopher. Let me play Jane Addams, the founder of modern social work and of the now fast-disintegrating juvenile justice system: Where was our state and the help from the brave authorities during those two months? It isn’t like Hidalgo County didn’t know…authorities responded to “several domestic violence calls” during that time. Christopher was 16 and his father was dead and his mother was wacko and maybe scary, and now Hidalgo County, which didn’t intervene properly with social workers, feels righteous giving the kid a “fair trial” and 45 years in lock-up, reminding everyone not to kill their emotionally disturbed mothers.

    Since I started this column by saying I was surprised by things recently, readers might ask why I was surprised by the jury’s verdict. Didn’t child advocate Jane Addams die in 1935? Well, here’s more on the conviction. Toward the trial’s conclusion — I followed the excellent reporting from The Monitor’s Jeremy Roebuck — it became obvious that the prosecution’s case was disintegrating. First, there was no physical evidence against the kid, and the body had decayed badly before being found.

    Secondly, Christopher’s lawyer made a brilliant case that the sheriff’s deputies were virtually fixated on Christopher, pressuring teen friends to testify against him. Several friends testified that the deputies coaxed them for evidence against Christopher, and they said that things they told the deputies were massaged in the written reports. “They came at me like they were trying to scare me,” said Christopher’s best friend. “Like I had done something wrong.” (The Monitor, August 8th)

    Thirdly, the sheriffs and prosecutors dropped to the bottom of the barrel and used a jail house snitch against Christopher. (The national Innocence Project — see their site — claims this jailhouse snitch practice has contributed to many false convictions.)

    A convicted killer being held in the juvenile center testified that he had heard Christopher admit to the murder. This sort of evidence is unacceptable and should be inadmissible, and the prosecution should lose the case for trying to sway a jury with it. A 16-year-old like Christopher is expected to act tough in jail. Part of surviving there is to say you are a killer. Jailhouse talk, reported by a convicted teenage murderer, is hardly a “confession.”

    Fourthly, The Monitor reported other possible suspects: Laura Doyle had told police before her death that she feared someone was “watching” her and “breaking in.” Also a 22-year-old convicted drug dealer, who once sold drugs to her, was found with a gun which might have been the weapon used. And Christopher’s older half-brother, who “discovered” the corpse, took pictures of it and called friends before calling the police.

    I was surprised…This case had “reasonable doubts” stamped all over the package. And another journalist told me that two “alternate jurors,” (back-ups who watched the whole trial) said they too were surprised.

  • The Mean Incomes of Texas

    By Greg Moses

    In Texas the top-to-bottom ratio is ten-to-one. For every pre-tax dollar earned by a family among the bottom twenty percent, a family in the top twenty percent earns ten dollars and forty cents.

    Only two states, New York and Mississippi, outscore Texas on the raw top-to-bottom scale. Massachusetts is tied with us. In California and New Mexico, every single bottom dollar is matched at the top by ten dollars and twenty cents.

    Over time the pattern only gets worse. In Texas over a period of 17 years (from 1988 to 2005) the average pre-tax income for families of the bottom fifth grew by 13 percent or about $1,800 in annual income; whereas, for families in the top fifth, pre-tax incomes grew by about 31 percent or $38,000 in annual income.

    Tax policies tend to narrow the top-to-bottom ratio by a couple of points. But whether you’re looking at the top-to-bottom ratio before taxes or after, the gap between the top fifth and bottom fifth grows tenaciously year by year.

    The same trend holds between top incomes and middle incomes. During the first five years of the 21st Century, middle income Texas families managed to increase their incomes by about one percent or $500 in annual income (after taxes); whereas families from the top fifth added about nine percent to their incomes or about $10,000 (after taxes).

    If the business of America is business, then the business of business in America is inequality. And this poses an environmental hazard to civil rights. What can it mean to fight for equality, equity, or equal opportunity in a society where everyone is daily experiencing inequality on the rise?

    In a 2008 report co-authored by Arthur B. Laffer, Ph.D., the tax policies of Texas were declared to be better than California’s based upon a supply-side matrix. It was another way of saying in so many words that we should keep a state income tax off the table in Texas.

    But what’s interesting about the tax policies of Texas and California from a top-to-bottom point of view is that the tax policies take both states from their top five positions in pre-tax inequality and move them down the scale to where they are tied around 17th place for growth in inequality after taxes.

    The tax policies of the Lone Star State have not only satisfied the supply-side guru, but since Texas families start off more unequal than California’s in pre-tax numbers, we have also managed to eliminate slightly more inequality in the process.

    In both states, we might add, the top-to-bottom gap in after-tax incomes stands above 13-to-one if by “top” we mean top five percent instead of top fifth. Would it be too radical to suggest notching this number down via tax policies to a more polite dozen-to-one?

    Notes

    Numbers for the top-to-bottom study (in 2005 dollars) were released last Spring in a joint study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute. See PULLING APART: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends by Jared Bernstein, Elizabeth McNichol, and Andrew Nicholas, April 2008 [in pdf format].

    For the “Laffer Report” see, COMPETITIVE STATES, Texas v. California: Economic Growth Prospects for the 21st Century, Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, August 2008, Texas Public Policy Foundation [in pdf format].

    PS

    Laffer and associates have also been busy in Oklahoma. A Tulsa Today Staff Report of Nov. 21 covers a supply side review of Oklahoma taxes dated January 2008 [in pdf format]. The report offers fond remembrances of Laffer’s prophetic support for “Prop 13,” the California property tax revolt that signaled the advent of the Reagan Revolution worldwide.

  • Democracy Now: Immigrant Abuses by Feds and Private Prisons

    Note: It’s a rare occasion when we re-post such a lengthy document, but with so many friends of the issue from Texas involved, we feel it is important to import the archive of this rush transcript from today’s edition of Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman–gm

    * * * * *

    AMY GOODMAN: We turn to the sprawling detention system within this
    country that some have likened to a gulag and a series of domestic Guantanamo
    Bays: the immigration prisons that over 300,000 pass through each year.

    Earlier this month, a thirty-four-year-old Chinese computer engineer named
    Hiu Lui Ng overstayed his visa, died in a Rhode Island immigration detention
    facility. He had cancer in his liver, in his lung, in his bones. He had a fractured
    spine.

    Despite repeated complaints of severe pain, Mr. Ng was refused independent
    medical evaluation by immigration officials. The New York Times reported
    this. Instead, he was taken in shackles to another prison two hours away, where
    an immigration officer tried to convince him to withdraw his appeals and accept
    deportation.

    Before Jason Ng—his American name—died on August 6th, he told his sister the
    doctors at the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Center in Rhode Island had told him
    to “stop faking” his illness.

    Jason Ng’s story is the latest in a series of similar cases of neglect and
    abuse at the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. Investigations
    by the Washington Post, the New York Times earlier this year
    revealed as many as eighty-three prisoners have died in or soon after ICE custody
    in the five years since the agency was created in March of 2003.

    When contacted for response, ICE said they could not comment on Jason Ng’s
    death, because it’s under investigation.

    Congress is responding to these deaths with legislation aimed to improve conditions
    for non-citizens in ICE custody. Congress member Zoe Lofgren from California
    and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey have sponsored the House and Senate
    versions of the Detainee Basic Medical Care Act of 2008.

    We’re joined right now by Joshua Bardavid, attorney for Mr. Ng ‘s family.
    We’re also joined by California Congress member Zoe Lofgren. And we welcome
    you both to Democracy Now!

    Before we go to the legislation, Joshua, tell us the full story of Jason Ng.
    Where was he born? How did he come to this country?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: Jason was born in Hong Kong, and he entered with his
    family at the age of seventeen. They applied for political asylum. Unfortunately,
    a notice telling them to go to court was mailed to a nonexistent address. So
    an immigration judge had ordered Jason deported in absentia, unknowingly. Meanwhile,
    he went to school in the United States, graduated high school, went to college,
    graduate college, became an engineer working at the Empire State Building.
    He married, had two US citizen children. He married a US citizen, and they
    applied—he applied for his green card. When he went for his interview, instead
    of having his green card adjudicated, he was picked up. This was in July of
    2007.

    AMY GOODMAN: Wait. So when he and his wife went to the green card interview?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: Correct, correct. What they thought was their final
    interview to get his green card, that he would finally become a lawful permanent
    resident in the United States, he was picked up and swept into this system.

    AMY GOODMAN: If he hadn’t applied for the green card, would he ever
    have been picked up? And he had been here for so many years, gone to college,
    was working here.

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: It’s possible that he would have been picked up. It’s
    possible that he would have lived his life not knowing that he had an order
    of deportation pending against him and not been touched. But the fact that
    he was trying to legalize his status was actually what put him into this system.
    Unfortunately, the system is sprawling. And he was first sent to a facility
    up in Massachusetts—I’m sorry, he was actually first sent to Rhode Island,
    then he was moved to a facility in Massachusetts, then to Vermont, and then
    back to Rhode Island from July 2007 until August 5 or August 6, the day that
    he passed away.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s talk about what happened when he went into
    the detention facility. Was he healthy, as far as he knew, when he went in?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: He was a healthy, robust man.

    AMY GOODMAN: Thirty-four.

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: Thirty-four. No history of medical problems.

    AMY GOODMAN: Very tall?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: Average height, average height. And he was slowly
    deteriorated as he was through the various facilities.

    AMY GOODMAN: How long was he held?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: He was held from July 2007 until August 5th or August
    6th. He died in the middle of the night.

    AMY GOODMAN: About a year.

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: About a year, a little over a year. During this process,
    he had a stay of deportation, because the courts were reviewing his deportation
    order, the fact that he was eligible for a green card, and immigration had
    not yet fully adjudicated his green card, because instead of adjudicating it,
    they had detained him.

    During this process, he began to complain of various medical problems. In
    April of 2008, he had a steep decline. In a ten-week period, he dropped twenty-three
    pounds. At this point, he was in St. Albans, Vermont in a facility that had
    absolutely no medical facilities whatsoever, not even a nurse on duty. He was
    then transferred to the Donald Wyatt facility in July—I believe July 2nd.

    AMY GOODMAN: In Rhode Island.

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: In Rhode Island, excuse me, yes. July 2nd, 2008.

    AMY GOODMAN: This, a public prison?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: It is a private prison. It’s owned by a private corporation
    that only owns the Donald Wyatt facility. It had been owned by a major publicly
    traded corporation, Cornell Corrections, until, I believe, June of 2007, and
    then it was transferred to this private corporation, the Donald Wyatt Detention
    Corporation, that owns the facility.

    The reason that he was moved from Vermont to Rhode Island was because the
    Vermont facility did not have any medical care facilities at all. Donald Wyatt
    supposedly had adequate facilities to provide for his care. Unfortunately,
    he was given basic medical evaluations. He was not given an MRI. He was not
    given a CAT scan, despite the fact that he was complaining of loss of feeling
    in extremities, despite the fact that he lost twenty-three pounds. At this
    point, he had now dropped about thirty to thirty-two pounds, and he was given
    just basic medical evaluation.

    AMY GOODMAN: They put him on a top bunk? They had double-bunk?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: That’s correct.

    AMY GOODMAN: So that he would have to climb up and down.

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: Correct.

    AMY GOODMAN: But he was complaining of extreme back pain.

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: Right, and at various stages, complete loss of movement
    in his feet, in his legs, and loss of feeling in his legs. Eventually he was
    given a bottom bunk and some pain killers and given a basic medical evaluation.
    But at this point, he was unaware that he had cancer.

    We’re unsure when he had a fractured spine. It may have occurred when he was
    moved by the ICE officials on
    July 30th. We don’t know when the fractured spine
    occurred. It’s possible, at this point, he did have a fractured spine. He was
    not given a wheelchair, despite repeated requests by his attorneys, by his
    family, by him, by his cell mate. He was cleared to walk with a cane, is what
    we were told.

    AMY GOODMAN: Why was he taken on a two-hour ride to Hartford, Connecticut?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: It’s not really clear, and that’s one of the many
    unanswered questions in this case. When it became clear that we were not going
    to be able to get through basic requests the medical care that was clear he
    needed, we filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking his release
    under due process grounds, because he was not receiving adequate care. This
    was filed on July 29th in Rhode Island. The very next day, he was taken in
    shackles in a van and driven two hours to Connecticut, where a deportation
    officer met with him and said that the only way they would release him or deport
    him is if he withdrew all of his appeals.

    AMY GOODMAN: Did he?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: No. He actually had become so desperate that he started
    to discuss that with his family members. At this point, communication was quite
    difficult, because he couldn’t use a phone, and he was not given a wheelchair.

    AMY GOODMAN: Why couldn’t he use a phone?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: Because he couldn’t walk to go to the payphone, and
    they wouldn’t give him a wheelchair to go to the payphone, and they wouldn’t
    give him a wheelchair to meet with us, his attorneys. So he was communicating
    through other Chinese-speaking detainees, although on the 30th, we were able
    to speak with him on the phone. And at this point, he began discussing withdrawing
    all his appeals.

    And to give you an idea of just how much pain he was in and how much suffering
    he was going through, this is a man with a one-year-old and a three-year-old
    child with a US citizen wife who’s lived more of his life in the United States
    than he did in his home country in Hong Kong, and he was considering giving
    all of that up and accepting an order of deportation, even though it’s our
    opinion that he was legally eligible for a green card, simply because he needed
    the suffering to end.

    AMY GOODMAN: When did the prison tell him he was faking it?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: That happened on several occasions. Just to correct
    you, I don’t believe it was a doctor who in fact accused him of faking it.
    I believe it was a nurse and several of the guards who said, you know, “You’re
    exaggerating your condition. You’re exaggerating your condition.”

    AMY GOODMAN: Where exactly did he die?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: He died in the hospital in Rhode Island.

    AMY GOODMAN: In the detention hospital?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: No, they had taken him to an outside hospital. What
    happened was, on July 31st, we had a hearing before a district judge in the
    district court of Rhode Island, and the district judge, while he didn’t rule
    on whether or not to release him, he, at the end of the hearing, said, “If
    this guy needs a wheelchair, get him a wheelchair. If he needs an MRI, get
    him an MRI.” And the US attorney, who was quite proactive at this point—only
    became involved in the case when we filed the petition in July 29th—assisted
    us in contacting the prison authorities and making sure the next day he was
    brought to a hospital for a CAT scan. And it was then and only then that it
    was discovered that he had cancer, basically all over his body, that he had
    a fractured spine, and we were told it was terminal. And he was—he remained
    in the hospital for the next three days, and he passed away on the night of
    August 5th, August 6th.

    AMY GOODMAN: Was his family with him?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: They were able to see him on the final day. It took
    a little over two days for us to get clearance. The prison wanted and ICE officials
    wanted the Social Security numbers of his family in order to permit them to
    visit Jason. But we were finally able to get clearance so they could be with
    him at his side.

    AMY GOODMAN: California Congress member Zoe Lofgren is with us now.
    She doesn’t represent his area, but has introduced federal legislation around
    medical care for immigration prisoners, for immigration detainees. Can you
    talk about the bill you’ve introduced and how it would affect, well, someone
    like Jason Ng, if he were still alive?

    REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Sure. I chair the Subcommittee on Immigration in
    the House of Representatives, and we’ve had two hearings on the conditions,
    medical conditions in ICE custody. One was last October. Then we had another
    in June.

    And as has been mentioned, there were a series of press exposes on really
    just outrageous conditions in custodial facilities relative to immigrants.
    And this is a terrible account to listen to what happened to Mr. Ng. Unfortunately,
    it’s not an isolated incident.

    And so, we have introduced legislation basically to require the ICE, the Immigration
    and Customs Enforcement Agency, which is a part of DHS that runs enforcement,
    to live up to the policies that they say they already are ruled by. It would
    require them to actually provide basic medical care to those in their detention.
    And it would also—the current system allows offsite, non-physician personnel
    to overrule medical treatment that is ordered by physicians in a facility,
    who are actually seeing a patient, that would preclude that. And right now,
    oftentimes they remove lifesaving medication from people who they arrest. That
    would—it would prohibit them from doing that. We’ve had people who’ve just
    died, because their medication was taken away when there were taken into custody.
    It has standards for screening and examination and continuity of care. It’s
    fascinating that when individuals are moved from facility to facility, their
    medical records aren’t sent with them. And so, that has caused some severe
    problems.

    AMY GOODMAN: I can already hear Lou Dobbs now, Congress member Lofgren,
    screaming into the camera, “Can you believe it? We’re giving medical care to
    illegal aliens in this country!”

    REP. ZOE LOFGREN: I’ve been on Lou Dobbs, and it’s not always a pleasure.
    But here’s the deal. I mean, when you arrest someone, you undertake some basic
    obligations for their care, and that’s required in our Constitution. You know,
    when you arrest someone, you have to feed them. That’s because they are no
    longer able to run down the street to McDonald’s on their own. When you arrest
    someone and they become ill, you need to provide basic medical care, because
    they can’t run down the street to the clinic or their own physician. That’s
    just the standards of decency that nations have, and it applies to the United
    States, as well.

    AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break, and then we’re going to come back
    to this conversation and talk about private prisons overall and follow up on
    the case of a young man, a boy, that we talked to in Texas in prison—he was
    nine years old, Kevin—and see what happened to him. He was imprisoned with
    his family in a private prison. We’re talking to Joshua Bardavid, immigration
    attorney here in New York, now representing Jason Ng’s family. Jason died in
    prison. And we are talking to California Congress member Zoe Lofgren. Stay
    with us.

    [break]

    AMY GOODMAN: Our guests, Joshua Bardavid, immigration attorney in New
    York; Congress member Zoe Lofgren in California. She has introduced a bill.
    She’s chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,

    Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.

    Awhile ago, we interviewed a little boy in prison. Kevin Yourdkhani was nine
    years old when he and his parents were detained at the Don Hutto Family Detention
    Center in Taylor, Texas for six weeks. They were flying over the United States
    on their way to seek asylum in Canada from Iran when there were detained, when
    there was this unrelated emergency. A person had a heart attack. They landed
    in Puerto Rico. They didn’t have the proper papers for the United States. They
    weren’t planning to come here. And they were sent to a detention facility.
    Kevin spoke to us from the jail last February.

      KEVIN YOURDKHANI: I want to be free. I want to go outside, and I
      want to go to school. I want to be in my homeland: Canada.

      JUAN GONZALEZ: How are the other children there? Are you spending
      time with any of the other children?

      KEVIN YOURDKHANI: No.

      JUAN GONZALEZ: They don’t let you spend time with the other children?

      KEVIN YOURDKHANI: No. I’m sleeping beside the washroom, and I can’t—and
      I’m upstairs. I can’t go to the washroom all the time. And there’s a lot
      of smell coming out from the washroom. And the food is garbage. And the school
      is very bad. I can’t learn anything good. And I have asthma, and I got sick
      in here. I can’t stay here anymore.

      AMY GOODMAN: Kevin, you said you’re sleeping next to the bathroom?

      KEVIN YOURDKHANI: Yeah. And it’s not a separate room. It’s right
      beside the bed. And I’m sleeping beside the wall, and my back gets sick and
      it hurts.

    AMY GOODMAN: Kevin was nine years old when we talked to him. This interview
    was played all over Canada, hardly got attention in the United States. Ultimately,
    the Canadian authorities let the family in. What’s happened to him since, Joshua
    Bardavid?

    JOSHUA BARDAVID: It’s my understanding that he remains in Canada. He’s
    a Canadian citizen and had every right to remain in Canada. His parents had
    a political asylum claim that was reopened upon his return, in large part,
    I believe, due to the public outcry that surrounded the interview. And it’s
    my understanding that their legal appeals are still being fought in the courts
    in Canada.

    AMY GOODMAN: And a special thanks to our producer Mike Burke, who got
    through to that prison, as we were able to talk live to Kevin and his dad Majid
    in the prison facility on Democracy Now!

    While thousands languish in immigration prisons, private corporations contracted
    by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, like GEO and Corrections Corporation
    of America, or CCA, are making record profits. CCA is the country’s largest
    private prison company, with strong political connections to both Republicans
    and Democrats. Together with ICE, they have detained close to a million non-citizens
    in the last five years.

    But an award-winning investigative project by independent journalist Renee
    Feltz and Stokely Baksh at businessofdentention.com reveals
    there is little oversight of conditions within these prisons. We’re joined
    now by Renee Feltz, who is here in our firehouse studio, a student at Columbia
    University School of Journalism, formerly a producer and news director at Pacifica
    station at KPFT in Houston.

    Welcome, Renee.

    RENEE FELTZ: Thank you, Amy.

    AMY GOODMAN: Tell us about the prisons.

    RENEE FELTZ: We looked at the business of immigrant detention. We’ve
    heard a lot about medical conditions for the detainees there, but we wanted
    to look at the billion-dollar industry. Essentially, as the immigrant detention
    population has boomed, the government has turned to the private sector, namely
    private prison companies like Corrections Corporation of America, to provide
    the detention services. Our investigation at businessofdetention.com looked
    at the money they’re making and the connections they use to make sure that
    the profits continue to roll in.

    AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what you have found, specifically the names
    of the companies, how they’ve grown, what prisons they run.

    RENEE FELTZ: The main company we looked at was Corrections Corporation
    of America. They’re based in Tennessee, but they’ve got plenty of connections
    in Washington, D.C. Specifically, we found, for example, that one of their
    main lobbyists, as the boom in immigrant detention beds was occurring, was
    Philip Perry, who’s the son-in-law of Dick Cheney. He was lobbying for them,
    went on to become the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security,
    which oversees ICE. And—

    AMY GOODMAN: He’s married to Cheney’s daughter?

    RENEE FELTZ: Yes. And then, the next year, CCA saw their highest revenue
    ever, for example. So, we also looked at their—so that’s one example of their
    revolving door. This is partly how companies make sure that the government—basically
    they have the government’s ear.

    We also looked at the lobby money that they give to political action committees,
    for example, and to congressmen. We found that more than half of the senators
    that they spent money on are actually on the Appropriations Committee, and
    their most generous donations went to the House Appropriations Subcommittee
    on Homeland Security, which oversees funding for these detention centers.

    AMY GOODMAN: And overall, how many people are incarcerated now?

    RENEE FELTZ: On an average day, you’ll see about 30,000 immigrants
    in detention in the United States. About 20 percent of those—and that number
    is growing—are in large sort of box detention centers, where they hold hundreds
    to thousands of people, primarily in the South and Southwest, where it’s easier
    to put people on planes and send them—return them to their home countries.

    Essentially, this business has boomed after the government moved from a practice
    of catch-and-release, as they called it, to a practice of catch-and-remove.
    And the situation that has resulted has been an increase in the demand for
    beds, because people are no longer allowed to be free as their deportation
    hearings are pending or if they have appeals pending. Instead, they’re detained
    in these facilities, and sometimes for as long as six months.

    AMY GOODMAN: Sergia Santibanez spent sixteen months—

    RENEE FELTZ: Right.

    AMY GOODMAN: —at CCA’s Houston processing center, before being deported
    to Mexico last year. Renee Feltz and Stokely Baksh spoke to Sergia from Mexico
    this year.

      SERGIA SANTIBANEZ: [translated] The conditions there are horrible.
      Besides that, they treat you like an animal. When you first get there, they
      tell you you’re nobody. When I got there, the mattresses were torn. They
      gave us horrible things to eat, which I don’t think were even fit to feed
      to dogs. The one for immigrants is worse, because I have been in federal
      prison, and there, they give good food, treat you well, and if somebody complains
      about bad treatment they say they’ve been subjected to or to discrimination,
      they pay attention, but not here. Here it’s worse, because they even tell
      you that you have to put up with it, because we came to them, not them to
      us, and so we, in the meantime, don’t have a right to anything.

    AMY GOODMAN: Sergia Santibanez is talking about the Houston detention
    facility. This is her daughter Luisanna Santibanez.

      LUISANNA SANTIBANEZ: We actually enjoyed visiting her in the federal
      prison more than we did visiting her in the detention center, because at
      the federal prison the visitation room was—had a living room-like environment,
      so we could all sit around a small table. And we could only physically hug
      my mom before and after the visit, but we could sit there and speak with
      her for—like for the whole day.

      And we thought that detention center visitation would be somewhat different,
      if not more open, given that the people in there weren’t actually like convicted
      of crimes, right? They’re there for immigration proceedings. It was the exact
      opposite. There, we were divided by the Plexiglas, and we only had thirty
      minutes to see her. You know, long waiting period. And it was bad.

      Even though, you know, we were sad to see that she got deported, that probably
      would have to be the most happiest moment of our family’s life in a long
      time, because for the first time in like two years we would be given the
      chance to actually hug her and be with her a little bit. And it took her
      some time to recover. I think anyone who’s been in prison for a long time
      can tell you about the effects of having to go through that experience. But
      I would have to say that her detention was probably the most excruciating
      experience for our family.

    AMY GOODMAN: Luisanna Santibanez, talking about Sergia Santibanez and
    her detention. Renee, you had done this interview?

    RENEE FELTZ: Right. Sergia Santibanez’s case is a classic example of
    how these detention centers, largely run by private companies, play a key role
    in ICE justifying its existence. As Congress has failed to pass comprehensive
    immigration reform, the focus regarding immigration is on enforcement. ICE
    has to have its numbers ramped up to show how many people they’re deporting,
    as many as 300,000 last year.

    Basically, when they put Sergia Santibanez in this detention center, they
    refused to release her until she agreed to leave the country. And that’s the
    case for the majority of detainees that go in there. They never see the light
    of day, after whatever way that they’re picked up, when they apply for their
    green cards, during immigration raids, some of them along the US-Mexico border,
    and they’re there until they agree to leave the country. It plays a key role
    in the US enforcement policy.

    AMY GOODMAN: How much lobbying do these private corporations do?

    RENEE FELTZ: They spend millions a year on lobbying. It’s not surprising,
    when you look at the disclosure records, you’ll see that they are concentrating,
    at least in part, on Homeland Security, which is ICE, on immigration issues,
    on issues that have to do with transparency of what takes place inside their
    facilities.

    AMY GOODMAN: Lobbying against?

    RENEE FELTZ: Yes. And it’s interesting. If you look at the lobbying
    expenditures of CCA between 2004 and the present, you’ll see a steady increase
    in the amount that they donate to Democrats. Before, we would see—I looked
    up the numbers this morning. In 2006, they spent about $4,000 on Democrats;
    in 2008, $35,000. So you can already see a steady increase. In CCA’s most recent
    earnings conference call with their shareholders and with analysts, they said
    that they don’t really anticipate any change in the demand for detention beds,
    depending on if Senator McCain or Senator Barack Obama get elected; they anticipate
    that there will still be an increase and a steady demand. In fact, they’ve
    got 10,000 beds in the pipeline ready for the government, should they want
    them.

    AMY GOODMAN: Zoe Lofgren, Congress member from California, how much
    power do these private corporations have that are running these prisons? How
    much accountability? And what are you doing about it in Congress?

    REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Well, I have serious concerns about how detention
    is being conducted and also the fact that people are over-incarcerated in the
    immigration system. Take the situation of Mr. Ng, who so tragically died. I
    mean, this is an individual whose notice for a hearing was sent to the wrong
    address. Consequently, he didn’t go to the hearing, because he didn’t know
    about it. To arrest him, as the only result of that, and refuse to let him
    go, when he has a US citizen wife, a job, owns a home, has two children, is
    a ridiculous situation. And certainly, his matter needed to be reviewed and
    sorted through, but there was no need at all, and he should not have been in
    custody at all. The case of the Iranian family seeking political asylum in
    Canada, they shouldn’t have been in custody at all. They should have been on
    their way back to Canada. So, first you have to look at who’s being put into
    these facilities.

    AMY GOODMAN: California Congress member Zoe Lofgren, unfortunately,
    we have to end it there, because the show has come to an end, but we will continue
    to follow your legislation. Thank you so much to Renee Feltz and to Joshua
    Bardavid.

  • Mexican Border Prosecutions Soar

    Email from Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (Aug. 15, 2008).

    Greetings from TRAC. The latest available data from the Justice Department show that new prosecutions by Customs and Border Protection during the first eight months of FY 2008 have soared. If CBP’s prosecutions continue at the same pace for the rest of the year, the FY 2008 total will be almost twice what it was in the previous year. For details, see the TRAC Report at:

    trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/191/

    According to the Justice Department, the CBP enforcement surge is the result of Project Streamline, a Bush Administration policy of bringing criminal charges against undocumented aliens.

    By contrast, the Justice Department data, obtained by TRAC under the FOIA, show a much less precipitous increase in prosecutions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also in the DHS. For details, see:

    trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/192/

    Although immigration raids in Iowa and other inland locations have been heavily covered by the media, the data show that a substantial proportion of the criminal enforcement effort — even by ICE — takes place along the Mexican border.

    TRAC continues to provide free reports on the latest enforcement trends. Go to trac.syr.edu/tracreports/bulletins/ for timely information on prosecutions and convictions that occurred in May for many categories of enforcement such as immigration, terrorism, white collar crime, official corruption, drugs, etc. Free reports are also available for major agencies such as the DEA, FBI, IRS and DHS.

    The May 2008 criminal data are also available to TRACFED subscribers via the Express, Going Deeper and Analyzer tools. Go to tracfed.syr.edu for more information. Customized reports for a specific agency, district, program, lead charge or judge are available via the TRAC Data Interpreter, either as part of a TRACFED subscription or on a per-report basis. Go to trac.syr.edu/interpreter to start.

    TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

    trac.syr.edu/sponsor/

    David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
    Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
    Syracuse University