The Goodis Center

advancing & protecting human rights

Report: Contemporary Immigration Detention Practices in the United States (2010)

By Leave a Comment

This report, prepared in 2010, documents the state of United States immigration detention practices, focusing on Northwest Detention Center – run by The GEO Group, Inc. – and on the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility – run by the Corrections Corporation of America.

The report was prepared by Robert Goodis as his Senior Project in fulfillment of the requirements for his Bachelor of Arts in Sociology and Human Rights at Bard College.  The report concludes that further research is necessary to reach any viable sociology-based recommendations, and it is based on these findings that The Goodis Center has continued researching immigration detention as one of our primary areas of focus.  While the report was unable to point to a sociological key to reforming immigration detention, it does unveil systemic problems in immigration detention across the United States and broadly offer the insight that alternatives to detention should be used whenever possible.

An excerpt from Chapter Three – Case Study: T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility, Williamson County, TX, and the Corrections Corporation of America is included below.  The full report is available for viewing and download here.

Excerpt from Chapter Three – Case Study: T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility, Williamson County, TX, and the Corrections Corporation of America

T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility, T. Don Hutto Residential Center, Immigration Detention, Detention Center

Read the rest of the report here.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Focusing on Asylum-Seekers, Asylees, and Refugees………………………………………… 1
Chapter One………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
A Short Introduction to Refugee Policy and the Definitions of Refugee & Asylum-Seeker ……. 3
A Brief Historical Survey of the Role of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in U.S. Legislation …… 14
A Survey and Summary of Select Laws, Doctrines, and Jurisprudence Affecting Refugee and
Asylum-Seeker Detention in the United States ……………………………………………………………… 17
The Response-Time of the United States in Changing Laws to Abide by International
Standards ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 34
Chapter Two – Case Study: Northwest Detention Center …………………………………………………… 36
The History and Purpose of the Northwest Detention Center and The GEO Group, Inc. …….. 36
Facility Design, Daily Living, and Detainee Demographics ……………………………………………. 38
Issues Facing Detainees at NWDC ………………………………………………………………………………. 41
Due process and grievances at NWDC ……………………………………………………………………… 41
Food, living conditions, medical care, and visitation at NWDC …………………………………… 48
Punishment and treatment by guards ………………………………………………………………………… 55
Administration and Oversight Issues at NWDC …………………………………………………………….. 59
Chapter Three – Case Study: T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility, Williamson County, TX,
and the Corrections Corporation of America ………………………………………………………………….. 66
The History and Purpose of the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility and the Corrections
Corporation of America ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 66
Facility Design, Daily Living, and Detainee Demographics ……………………………………………. 71
Issues Facing Detainees at Hutto …………………………………………………………………………………. 78
Due process and grievances at Hutto ………………………………………………………………………… 78
Food, living conditions, visitation, medical care, and education at Hutto ………………………. 83
Punishment and treatment by guards ………………………………………………………………………… 93
Administration and Oversight Issues at Hutto ……………………………………………………………….. 97
Chapter Four – Analysis, Conclusions, and Recommendations …………………………………………. 102
The Human Rights, Social, and Legal Implications of Contemporary Detention Practices … 102
The Human Rights, Social, and Legal Implications of Contemporary Detention Practices as
Analyzed through a Sociological Approach ………………………………………………………………… 114
Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 125
Acronyms and Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 151

 

Abstract:

“Contemporary Immigration Detention Practices in the United States: A Study in Sociology and Human Rights” is a study on the detention and incarceration of immigrants, with particular focus on the effects and implications of detaining refugees and asylum-seekers, in the United States. The study reports on two specific detention facilities—the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, and the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility (a.k.a. T. Don Hutto Residential Center) in Taylor, Texas—as sociological case-studies, primarily presented as legal briefs, to explore how contemporary detention practices relate to the legal structure and ideals established by domestic and international law, including international human rights law. Through an analysis of how current practices satisfy or miss ideal standards set by laws, declarations, policies, and other such guidelines, this study determines that current detention practices constitute a clear and detrimental case of systemic human rights violations. While a brief sociological exploration of the trends and conditions in immigration detention offers various theories which may explain—and eventually go into forming an effective remedy for—these violations, this study can only determine that more research needs to be compiled in order to reach any valid sociological conclusions.

 

 

Read the full report, courtesy of the Bard College Digital Commons.

 

Creative Commons License
The report is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Browse our archive of full reports and essays.

Abu Ghraib: Will anyone be held accountable?

By Leave a Comment

via Center for Constitutional Rights on facebook:
“Detainees under American control were raped, beaten, shocked, stripped, starved of food and sleep, hung by their wrists, threatened with death and, in at least one case, murdered. These are war crimes, punishable under both American and international law.” The New York Times on what is at stake in the Center for Constitutional Rights‘ court argument tomorrow regarding the role of private military contractor CACI in the abuse and torture that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Photo in the Public Domain November 2003 - Hooded detainee with wires attached to hands and genitalia stands on a box; the detainee was told that he would be electrocuted if he fell off the box. Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, at right, clips his fingernails.
Photo in the Public Domain
November 2003 – Hooded detainee with wires attached to hands and genitalia stands on a box; the detainee was told that he would be electrocuted if he fell off the box.
Staff Sgt. Ivan “Chip” Frederick, at right, clips his fingernails.

The Editorial Board of The New York Times ran a featured piece today entitled “Will Anyone Pay for Abu Ghraib?”

Tomorrow, a federal trial court in Virginia will consider whether two contractors — CACI International Inc. and L-3 Services Inc. — can be sued in American courts for damages relating to their operations at Abu Ghraib.

Read the full Times article here.

“When Texas Executes One” : Occupy Wall Street and the Effects of Corporate Personhood

By 1 Comment

The extension of rights, privileges, and power under the mask of “corporate personhood” and its inherent application of the equal protection clause has turned industries into collections of Frankenstein’s monsters on track to devour their creators. In the midst of economic turbulence, demonstrators at Occupy Wall Street and around the globe have taken issue with the trend wherein corporate personhood extends rights traditionally reserved for natural persons to corporations, often without imposing the same standards of accountability traditionally applied to natural persons. But what exactly are “corporate personhood” and the rights granted by it? And to what extent can a corporation be held accountable for its actions? The answer to this question is soon to come.

The Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear the Kiobel vs. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell)case, which will determine whether or not corporations can be held responsible for human rights violations overseas. This case involves the Ogoni people of Nigeria who, after demanding an end to the oil development that was destroying their region, were tortured and executed by Shell in collusion with the Nigerian government. Now, if Shell is found to be liable, corporations will have a new layer of responsibility, further completing their status as persons.

But rather than to delve into a discussion on morality in the post-industrial age, let’s consider the history of corporate personhood and how it came to be. In the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case regarding the taxation of corporations, the Supreme Court declared that corporations can be considered persons under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But more relevant and problematic to the Occupy protesters is the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which gave corporations the right to give exorbitant funds to political campaigns without disclosure. The Citizens United case overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which prohibited corporations from “electioneering” – driving politics with corporate funding, asserting that the Campaign Reform Act was a violation of the First Amendment rights of corporations. Strengthening the corporatocratic  behemoth behind modern politics, the ruling had unquestionable influence in the 2010 election cycle, in which spending from outside groups quadrupled from 2006 levels and nearly half of all campaign donations were provided by only ten corporations, according to Public Citizen.

However, the Occupy protesters believe that it is unfair that corporations can use their wealth to buy louder voices and bigger influence in the political sphere. In a recent interview with NPR, Professor John Witt of Yale Law School summarized the protesters’ opinion that “the differences…between natural persons and metaphysical persons or corporations might be a good reason to distinguish between natural persons and corporations for purposes of regulating speech.” In the spirit of Occupy Wall Street, the one-year anniversary of theCitizens United decision sparked a flurry of small demonstrations in January 2011.

The upcoming Kiobel decision, however, could be a significant step towards restoring corporate responsibility, or a tragic step towards unchecked corporate power and rights. If corporations are to enjoy the benefits of legal personhood and equal protection, they must also be held accountable for human rights violations and other criminal acts.

When I visited Zuccotti Park, the epicenter of the Occupy protests, on Oct. 15, I saw a few signs sporting this slogan: “I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.” Even though a metaphysical execution, corporations have been “executed” for violating human rights laws. A key example is IG Farben, a German chemical conglomerate which was dissolved after WWII because of its role in the Holocaust and persistent widespread corruption. IG Farben worked closely with the Nazi government to secure chemical plants in the invaded countries of Poland and Czechoslovakia during WWII. Additionally, IG Farben held the patent for Zyklon B, the chemical used in gas chambers at the Auschwitz and Majdanek concentration camps, which killed roughly 1.2 million people. At the Nuremberg trials, 13 IG Farben executives were imprisoned for the war crimes committed by their company.  A few years later, the conglomerate was forcibly split up by the Allies into four smaller companies. Although a corporation cannot literally be “executed,” the break-up of IG Farben may serve as a guide for future human rights violations committed by corporations. With the outcome of the Kiobel case, hopefully, we will see the beginning of a new era of corporate responsibility.

Welcome to The Goodis Center


Connect with Us

The Goodis Center for Research and Reform, Inc.
9405 Caroline Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20901-3043
Phone: 1(301)200-2025
Fax: 1(301)202-9730
Contact Us

Mission Statement

The Goodis Center for Research and Reform, Inc., is passionately committed to creating a world that is equitable, humane, and just. We aim to do so by fostering a better understanding of human rights... Read more...

Support Our Programs

As a small nonprofit, your support makes our programs possible.  We welcome volunteers, freelance contributors, and pro bono professionals.  Learn more about how you can get involved with The Goodis Center here.  We are also grateful for your financial support.

Newsletter