United States

Detains migrants or asylum seekers?

Yes

Has laws regulating migration-related detention?

Yes

Migration Detainee Entries

273,220

2023

Average Daily Migrant Detainee Population

28,289

2023

Refugees

389,335

2023

Asylum Applications

2,195,300

2023

Overview

The United States operates the world’s largest immigration detention system, counting on beds in some 200 facilities, including privately operated detention facilities, local jails, juvenile detention centres, field offices, and “family residential centres.” The country has also supported the detention of migrants and asylum seekers in neighbouring countries and was a pioneer in offshoring detention. On any given day, it can have upwards of 50,000 non-citizens in detention; annually, it "books-in" some 300,000 people into immigration detention.

Types of facilities used for migration-related detention
Administrative Ad Hoc Criminal Unknown

United States and El Salvador: A Scheme to Deport Migrants from the US to a “Human Rights Black Hole” 

On 7 April, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could continue deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador’s “supermax” CECOT prison, referred to by observers as a “human rights black hole.” In March, more than 260 people were deported and placed in the facility under the US’s controversial agreement with El […]

Read More…

Detainees inside El Salvador's CECOT facility

United States: Immigration Detention Set to Expand Despite Growing Calls to Reduce Detainee Numbers Amidst Reports of Mistreatment and Terrible Detention Conditions

A number of civil society groups in the United States have recently published highly critical reports alleging abusive and inhuman conditions at privately operated immigration detention centres. These include reports of abuse and mistreatment of vulnerable people, medical neglect, and failure to provide access to legal assistance. Private prison operators are nevertheless planning important extensions […]

Read More…

Aurora migrant detention facility, Colorado (Source: https://www.advocate.com/news/trans-migrants-mistreatment-detention)

New York State: The Dignity Not Detention Act

A new white paper from students at Cornell’s Brooks School of Public Policy (State Policy Advocacy Clinic) provides a detailed look into immigration detention policies in the state of New York.  […]

Read More…

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

On 30 August, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) released Concluding observations concerning its periodic review of US implementation of the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The Committee highlighted the discriminatory application of immigration enforcement measures, stating that mandatory detention measures have a “disparate impact on asylum seekers of […]

Read More…

C. Shoichet and C. Hickey,

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

In late June, 53 migrants died after being abandoned in a trailer in south-west San Antonio, Texas, marking the highest ever death toll from a human trafficking event near the US-Mexico border. More than half of the victims were originally from Mexico while 14 were from Honduras, seven from Guatemala, and two from El Salvador. […]

Read More…

Police and First Responders Standing Next to the Trailer (Eric Gay,

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a hard-hitting report on the mistreatment of detainees at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centres since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the details of more than 40 lawsuits filed by the ACLU on behalf of detainees, the report, titled “The Survivors: Stories of […]

Read More…

A still from surveillance footage included in a Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General report from March about pandemic-era violations of detention standards at the La Palma immigration detention center in Arizona. The people being pepper sprayed had been peacefully protesting to demand better protection from COVID-19: N. Lanard,

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

New U.S. President Joseph Biden issued a series of immigration-related executive orders that roll back signature–and highly controversial–programs of the Trump administration. At the same time, reports have surfaced about how guards at privately operated immigration detention centres–which greatly expanded under Trump–threatened detainees with exposure to COVID-19 if they resisted being deported, adding fuel to […]

Read More…

New Immigration Detention Beds Operated by Private Prison Companies Diagram, (Human Rights Watch, American Civil Liberties Union, and National Immigrant Justice Centre, “Justice-Free Zones: U.S. Immigration Detention Under the Trump Administration,” April 2020, https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/supporting_resources/justice_free_zones_immigrant_detention.pdf)

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

As of mid-December 2020, more than 7,800 ICE detainees had tested positive for COVID-19 and eight deaths related to the virus recorded. According to the San Antonio Express News, in detention centres under the jurisdiction of the San Antonio field office alone, there have been more than 1,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases. In a commentary published […]

Read More…

A Protestor Holding up a Sign During a Protest Against US and Mexican Migration Policies at the San Ysidrio Crossing Port, (AFP, Getty Images,

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

On 18 November 2020, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to cease the expulsion of unaccompanied migrant children during the pandemic, halting a policy that has resulted in thousands of rapid deportations of minors. The government has expelled at least 8,800 unaccompanied children seeking protection since March on the basis of a health order […]

Read More…

Children Walking in a line at a Tent Encampment in Tornillo, Texas, on 19 June 2018, (Mike Blake, Reuters,

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

There is a growing body of evidence revealing how the Trump administration, acting through the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement and the Customs and Border Protection agencies, has exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent access to asylum procedures, ramp up summary deportations of children and other vulnerable individuals, and decrease transparency with respect to measures […]

Read More…

The Words 'Help We Matter 2' Are Seen on a Window at the Cook County Department of Corrections in April 2020, (K. Krzaczynski, Getty Images,

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

In a complaint submitted to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General, a nurse previously employed at the Irwin County Detention Centre in the state of Georgia alleges that the women detainees at the privately-operated centre have suffered severe abuses and “jarring medical neglect” throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. According the nurse, Dawn […]

Read More…

An aerial view of Irwin County Detention Centre, Georgia (Google Maps)

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

A damning new report in the New York Times (16 August) reveals the extensive use of hotels and untrained private contractors to detain unaccompanied children and families as part of speedy removal proceedings. The practice, part of the Trump administration’s pandemic-related immigration and border measures, aims to quickly “expel” migrants from the country rather than […]

Read More…

A Person Waves to Protesters Demonstrating Against the Practice of Detaining Migrants in Hotels at a Hampton Inn in McAllen in July, (Joel Martinez, The Monitor,

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

On 26 June, a federal Judge ordered the release of children held with their parents in immigration detention centres. District Judge Dolly M. Gee’s order applies to children held for more than 20 days at three family detention centres in Texas and Pennsylvania operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Due to the recent spread […]

Read More…

Asylum Seekers Leaving a Cafeteria at the ICE South Texas Family Residential Centre in Dilley, Texas, (Eric Gay, Associated Press,

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

The death of a second detainee in ICE custody from Covid19-related causes was reported on 4 June. More than 800 detainees across all ICE facilities have tested positive, although only 10 percent of the detainee population had been tested as of 30 May. Multiple transfers between facilities have reportedly spread the virus and led to […]

Read More…

Immigrants are led onto a flight in the United States, (John Miller, Associated Press,

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

Health officials in the state of California announced the first COVID-19 fatality of an immigration detainee on 7 May. The person had been detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center, which is operated by the prison prison company CoreCivic (formerly the Corrections Corporation of America) in San Diego. The ACLU, in a tweet, said: “The […]

Read More…

The Otay Mesa Detention Center, operated by the private prison company CoreCivic (formerly the Corrections Corporation of America), where the first Covid-19 fatality among US immigration detainees had been detained.

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

During the week of 27 April 2020, two ICE guards in a Louisiana detention centre died after contracting Covid-19. Relatives reported that they believed both men had contracted the virus while working at Richwood Correctional Centre in Monroe. In addition, reports indicate that although 45 detainees had tested positive for the virus, guards were allegedly […]

Read More…

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

ICE reported in mid-March that there were no confirmed cases of Covid-19 in its immigration detention centres. A month later, however, they reported 124 confirmed cases among detainees in 25 facilities, in addition to 30 positive cases among ICE employees. According to the Centre for Migration Studies (CMS) of New York, these ICE figures may […]

Read More…

Government Officials Wearing Protective Masks Stand Next to a Plane Carrying Migrants Deported from the US at La Aurora International Airport in Guatemala, (12 March 2020, CNN,

United States: Covid-19 and Detention

The detention visitation group Freedom for Immigrants has updated its map of U.S. detention centres with a “Covid-19 Reporting” filter that provides updated information about infections in detention centres as well as other impacts related to the pandemic. The Center for Migration Studies has launched a dedicated Covid-19 policy developments page, which focuses mainly though […]

Read More…

Freedom for Immigrants, Interactive Map - U.S. Immigration Detention, https://www.freedomforimmigrants.org/map

United States: Covid-19 and detention

Facing pressure from rights groups and civil society, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has released a small number of immigration detainees. However, as the United States has the largest Immigration detention system in the world, which can reach some 40,000 detainees on any given day, the challenges the country confronts are enormous. Those released to […]

Read More…

Protestors in Philadelphia call for officials to release people from prisons and immigration detention centres, Voice of America, 30 March 2020 (https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/now-us-judge-wont-release-immigrants-high-virus-risks)
Last updated: April 2016

United States Immigration Detention Profile

     

    INTRODUCTION

    Immigration detention is at the centre of numerous heated public debates in the United States, including about the treatment of undocumented children and families, the growth of the private prison industry, the use of jails for immigration purposes, and the increasing convergence between immigration law and the criminal justice system. The country has also been criticized for its efforts to pressure and in some cases pay other countries to detain migrants and asylum seekers so they do not reach U.S. borders.[1]

    The size and cost of U.S. immigration detention and removal operations have spiralled since the 1990s. The number of people placed in detention annually increased from some 85,000 people in 1995 to a record 477,523 during fiscal year (FY) 2012.[2] While the Obama administration began instituting detention reforms in 2009, which among other things led to a reduction in the use of prisons for immigration purposes, the number of immigration detainees increased every year between 2009 and 2012.[3] The country has also deported record numbers of non-citizens in recent years, peaking at 438,421 “removals” in FY 2013[4] (in addition to nearly 180,000 “returns”[5]).

    According to a 2014 study on the history of immigration control policies in the United States, between 1986 and 2012, the United States spent some $187 billion on immigration enforcement. In 2012, the government spent nearly $18 billion on enforcement, “approximately 24 percent higher than collective spending for the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”[6] By 2014 the annual cost of the detention portion of the immigration enforcement budget had grown to roughly $2 billion, or approximately $5 million a day (or $159 per detainee/day).[7] The U.S. president’s FY 2017 budget request for detention beds and transportation was $1.75 billion.

    However, detention numbers have recently begun to decline.[8] During FY 2015, deportations (“removals”) decreased by nearly 200,000 to 235,413.[9] Similarly, during the first half of FY 2015, the average daily detainee population was 26,374, down from 33,000 the year before.

    U.S. officials explain that these decreases reflect fewer numbers of unauthorised arrivals as well as increased efforts to target convicted criminals for removal. According to official statistics, there were 337,117 border apprehensions in 2015,[10] which was the lowest number since 1972.[11] These decreases were also reflected in declining annual detention bed mandates. As of FY 2014, U.S. Congress mandated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds at all times.” This number decreased to about 31,000 in FY 2015.[12]  

    National and international advocacy groups—including the Detention Watch Network, the Women’s Refugee Commission, and the International Detention Coalition—have long contended that the United States could achieve similar enforcement results at much lower costs if it decreased detention operations and ramped up “alternatives to detention.” A 2013 study by the National Immigration Forum contended, “Less wasteful and equally effective alternatives to detention exist. Estimates from the Department of Homeland Security show that the costs of these alternatives can range from 70 cents to $17 per person per day. If only individuals convicted of serious crimes were detained and less expensive alternative methods were used to monitor the rest of the currently detained population, taxpayers could save more than $1.44 billion per year—almost an 80 percent reduction in annual costs.”[13]

     

    LAWS, POLICIES, PRACTICES

    History. The first office for federal immigration control in the United States was established in 1864. However, it was not until the Immigration Act of 1882, which provided that immigration regulation was the responsibility of the federal government, that operations at the office began in earnest.[14] Passage of the Immigration Act as well as other restrictionist measures at the time, like the Chinese Exclusion Act, helped lead to the opening of arguably the first U.S. immigration detention centre, on Ellis Island in New York Harbour in 1892.[15] A sister facility was opened on Angel Island in San Francisco Bay in 1910.[16]

    After Ellis Island closed in 1954, the practice of immigration detention appears to have largely faded. However, significant increases in Caribbean migration and refugee flows beginning in the 1970s helped spur renewed focus on detention. The modern U.S. immigration detention system began to take shape in the early 1980s, when the Reagan-era INS began systematically apprehending undocumented migrants from certain countries and opened a number of new detention centres in Puerto Rico and the U.S. mainland to cope with the resulting surge in detainees.[17] According to one account, “Prior to the 1980s, the INS enforced a policy of detaining only those individuals deemed likely to abscond or who posed a security risk.”[18]

    In a key U.S. Supreme Court case from the time, Jean v. Nelson (1985), the court overturned a mandatory detention policy put in place in 1981 that strictly targeted Haitian nationals. A U.S. immigration law scholar told the Global Detention Project, “To a large extent once the Jean v. Nelson decision came down and the Reagan administration did not have the authority to detain only Haitians, the current detention system was born, i.e. detain all nationalities.”[19]

    A year after this court ruling, in 1986, the government passed the Immigration Control and Reform Act (IRCA), which combined the legalization of certain undocumented immigrants with stepped up internal enforcement and control measures. IRCA marked a significant moment in the U.S. approach to immigration by cementing enforcement of immigration restrictions as a cornerstone of U.S. policy. According to a 2005 assessment, “Overall spending on enforcement activities has ballooned from pre-IRCA levels, with appropriations growing from $1 billion to $4.9 billion between FY 1985 and 2002 and staffing levels increasing greatly. Resources have been concentrated heavily on border enforcement, particularly the Border Patrol. Spending for detention and removal/intelligence activities multiplied most rapidly over this period, with an increase in appropriations of over 750 percent.”[20]

    With the adoption of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), the number of non-citizens who could be placed in mandatory immigration detention significantly expanded. The INS subsequently ramped up available bed space for detainees. By 2014, DHS was mandated to ensure that there were 34,000 beds available daily for immigration detention purposes.[21]

    Key norms. U.S. law governing immigration detention is provided in several acts, which are consolidated in Section 8 of the U.S. Code. In addition, there are a large number of memorandums, guidance documents, and policy statements issued by ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that relate to immigration detention.

    It has long been recognized that non-citizens, including those in the United States unlawfully, are entitled to the fundamental guarantees of the Constitution. As early as 1903, the Supreme Court ruled that a non-citizen could not be deported without an opportunity to be heard that met constitutional due process requirements, although this did not necessarily mean an opportunity for a judicial proceeding.[22]

    Once non-citizens have entered the country, they are theoretically granted protection against deprivation of liberty without due process regardless of their immigration status.[23] Nevertheless, they can receive very different treatment because removal proceedings are considered “administrative,” which means that people in immigration procedures have fewer due process guarantees than people in criminal proceedings. As one expert who was consulted for this profile said, “There is no right to appointed counsel in removal proceedings and the normal rules of evidence do not apply. In addition, in recent years, between 80 and 90 percent of those removed have faced some form of expedited, streamlined, process-less removal; that is, they have either never seen the inside of an immigration court or their cases have received only cursory review by an immigration judge after they have ‘stipulated’ to their own removal.”[24]

    The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) brought into one comprehensive statute the multiple laws that previously governed immigration and naturalization in the United States.[25] It regulates the conditions under which non-citizens may enter the United States by providing a list of grounds of deportability and a list of exclusive grounds of inadmissibility.[26] The INA is formally contained in Title 8 of the United States Code, which is a compilation of all federal laws passed by Congress.[27]

    Since the mid-1990s, many changes to United States immigration law have been introduced that represent a trend toward restricting the rights of non-citizens. These changes include the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).[28]

    IIRIRA mandates the detention of a broad range “inadmissible” and removable non-citizens.[29] Under U.S. law, any person without immigration status may be taken into custody. Lawful permanent residents and undocumented persons with a broad array of criminal convictions or those who are believed to pose a threat to national security are subject to mandatory detention.[30] Non-mandatory detainees may be released if they do not “pose a danger to property or persons” and are likely to appear for immigration proceedings.”[31]

    In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld mandatory detention for non-citizens with pending removal cases for the time necessary to complete those proceedings, which was found to be a month and a half for the majority of cases, although when non-citizens appeal a decision their time in detention typically increases.[32]

    On the other hand, the Supreme Court has prohibited the indefinite detention of non-citizens who have been ordered removed.[33] However, a joint 2015 study by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Center for Migration Studies reported that despite the Supreme Court ruling thousands of non-citizens on any given night have been detained for periods of more than six months, including after receiving a removal order.[34]

    Criminalisation. The U.S. immigration enforcement system is intimately intertwined with the criminal justice system, as exemplified by the long-standing U.S. practice of using prisons to confine immigration detainees. This practice has been largely banned in most major developed nations, particularly in Europe where European Union directives provide that immigration detainees be kept in specially designed facilities separate from criminal-related prisons.[35] An official ICE study published in 2009 heavily criticized this U.S. practice. It concluded that “the facilities that ICE uses to detain aliens were built, and operate, as jails and prisons to confine pre-trial and sentenced felons. ICE relies primarily on correctional incarceration standards designed for pre-trial felons and on correctional principles of care, custody, and control. These standards impose more restrictions and carry more costs than are necessary to effectively manage the majority of the detained population.”[36]

    An important form of immigration criminalisation in the United States is that many immigration-status-related violations are subject to prosecution. Although non-citizens who are in detention to complete immigration or asylum-related processes are considered in administrative (or “civil”) detention, tens of thousands of people are also incarcerated for immigration-related crimes every year. Since 1996, prosecutions for re-entering the country after being deported, particularly for those previously convicted of crimes, have increased. Prosecutions for illegal entry and re-entry have risen from 4,000 in 1993 to 31,000 in 2004 and 91,000 in 2013.[37] These prosecutions have also been a key reason for increases in overall federal prosecutions. According to the Pew Research Center, increases “in unlawful reentry convictions alone accounts for nearly half” of the growth of federal prosecutions during the period 1992-2012.[38] During FY 2015, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, the government charged nearly 75,000 people with immigration-related offenses.”[39]

    Helping to boost the numbers of immigration-related prosecutions has been “Operation Streamline,” a joint DHS-DOJ program launched in 2005 that aims to deter unauthorized entry by criminally prosecuting persons entering the country without authorization, including “first-time illegal border crossers.”[40] The Center for Migration Studies and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reported in 2015 that these prosecutions “have taken the form of summary, en masse guilty pleas, largely devoid of due process protections.”[41] According to Human Rights Watch, “Under Operation Streamline, dozens of defendants at a time are charged, plead guilty, and ultimately convicted and sentenced of the federal misdemeanor of illegal entry, all within a matter of hours and sometimes even minutes. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) claims that the program reduces recidivism by deterring migrants from trying to enter the US illegally again.”[42]

    The relationship between criminal and immigration enforcement was further consolidated during the Barack Obama presidency as authorities ramped up efforts to deport “criminal aliens.” A key driver of increased removals was the “Secure Communities” program, which operated during 2008-2014. Under this program, local law enforcement officials shared information with federal immigration authorities concerning non-citizens—including both lawful and unauthorized foreign residents—who were booked into jails. In addition, a hierarchy of prioritised non-citizens to be detained and deported was created.[43]

    Secure Communities came under harsh criticism, especially as it targeted large numbers of people who had only committed minor offenses like traffic or immigration violations. Between 2011 and 2013, DHS removed more “criminal aliens” for immigration-related crimes than for any other category of crime.[44] An analysis of every person in immigrant detention on September 22, 2012 found that 61 percent had been convicted of a crime, but only 10 percent had been convicted of violent crimes.[45] Traffic and immigration offenses were among the most prevalent crimes by offense category. Arrests for minor crimes, combined with the threat of deportation pursuant to Secure Communities, created division and mistrust between police and heavily immigrant communities. In announcing the end of the program in late 2014, a DHS official acknowledged, “Its very name has become a symbol of hostility toward the enforcement of our immigration laws.”[46]

    Children. The immigration detention of children and families has received unprecedented attention in the United States since mid-2014 when tens of thousands of children, mainly from the Northern Triangle states of Central American, arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border, spurring a media and political outcry. According to a study by the Organisation of American States (OAS), prompting these movements of people has been “a worsening human rights situation in the principle countries of origin” and “poverty, economic and gender inequality, multi-sectorial discrimination, and high levels of violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico.”[47]

    There are important differences in the treatment of unaccompanied and accompanied children arriving in the United States. “Unaccompanied alien child” is defined by law as a child who “(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States; (B) has not attained 18 years of age; and (C) with respect to whom—(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.”[48] Due to their particular vulnerability, these children receive certain protections under U.S. law. On the other hand, the law does not formally define the term “accompanied” child, but children who arrive in the United States with a parent or guardian are considered accompanied.[49]

    Unlike families, unaccompanied children cannot be placed in expedited removal proceedings. Unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries are placed in standard removal proceedings in immigration court, but CBP must transfer custody of them to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) of the Department of Health and Human Services within 72 hours. Unaccompanied children from contiguous countries must be screened by a CBP officer to determine if they are unable to make independent decisions,[50] are a victim of trafficking, or fear persecution in their home country. If none of these conditions apply, CBP will immediately send the child back to their home country through the voluntary return process.[51]

    Although unaccompanied children may be detained, special laws require that the best interests of the child govern custody determinations and placement. Once transferred from CBP, the Office of Refugee Resettlement manages the custody of unaccompanied children until they can be released to family members or other individuals or organisations. The law requires that these children be placed in the least restrictive setting in their best interests and they are generally held in a network of state-licensed, government-funded private care providers that are meant to offer education, healthcare, and case management services.[52]

    The law allows for the detention of families and accompanied children. Although such detention is highly controversial, the practice has been expanded since 2014 in response to the large increases in families migrating to the United States and fleeing violence in Central America.[53]

    Between October 2013 and September 2014, 68,541 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the southwestern border of the country,[54] prompting President Obama to describe the situation as a humanitarian crisis.[55] In 2014, 52,539 unaccompanied minors were detained in the country.[56] New detention centres have been constructed to be used as family detention centres in Texas and Pennsylvania, as discussed below in the section on “Detention Infrastructure.” These facilities are euphemistically called “family residential centres.”

    With regard to unaccompanied Mexican children specifically, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) found that DHS had applied a presumption that the children were not in need of international protection. The IACHR reports, based on UNHCR estimates, that around 95.5 percent of Mexican children arriving alone in the country are returned without ever having the opportunity to see an immigration judge. The report also raised issues with the conditions of detention of migrant children.[57]

    Recent court rulings and orders are relevant to the consideration of immigrant children in the United States.

    In February 2015, the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ordered a preliminary injunction immediately halting the government’s policy of detaining mothers and children with legitimate asylum claims solely to deter others from migrating to the United States.[58] The judge in this case ordered immigration authorities to “consider each asylum case to determine if the migrants would present risks to public safety if they were released while their cases moved through the courts.”[59]

    Later, in August 2015, the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a ruling ordering DHS to begin releasing immigrant children and their accompanying parents from detention.[60] The ruling stated that children should not be held for more than 72 hours unless they were a significant flight risk or a danger to themselves or others.[61]

    To avoid court-ordered restrictions in the detention of children, in early 2016 the federal government reportedly asked Texas officials to license facilities used to detain immigrant families in the state as “child welfare” institutions.[62]

    Asylum seekers. U.S. law distinguishes between three different types of asylum-seekers: affirmative asylum-seekers who are not in removal proceedings; defensive asylum-seekers who seek asylum in removal proceedings before an immigration judge; and asylum-seekers who enter the United States without proper documents and are subject to expedited removal. Under certain conditions, asylum seekers may be detained. This includes situations in which asylum-seekers have been denied asylum and have overstayed the expiry of their visas. In addition, an asylum-seeker claiming asylum at a U.S. port-of-entry or after entering the U.S. without proper documents will be automatically detained pending an interview to determine if they have a “credible fear” of persecution. In this situation, those deemed not to have a credible fear will be detained subject to removal from the country. Persons found to have a credible fear can be but often are not released, as they pursue their asylum claims before an immigration judge.

    As of June 2015, there were nearly 500,000 asylum-seekers and resettled refugees who were residing in the country.[63] According to UNHCR, during 2014, there were 63,913 new asylum applications made. This compares to 45,374 during 2013, 43,054 during 2012, and 38,525 during 2011.[64]

    The GDP has been unable to locate information about the number of asylum-seekers held in detention in the United States. In its official response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request jointly lodged by the GDP and Access Info Europe in 2013, ICE officials failed to answer a question concerning statistics about asylum seekers in detention.[65]

    Alternatives to detention. People who do not fall under mandatory detention provisions may be eligible for bail or conditional release. However, DHS can revoke its authorization of release as a matter of discretion at any time.[66]  

    Funding for the development and expansion of alternatives to detention (ATD) programs has steadily increased over time, with Congress appropriating $43.6 million for such programs in 2007 and $91 million in 2014.[67] In addition, ICE’s plan for the years 2010-2014 identified a need to develop a cost effective ATD program that would enjoy high rates of appearances in removal proceedings.[68] However, advocates argue that the use of ATDs has not reduced reliance on detention and some ATD programs continue fail to comply with basic due process requirements.[69]

    Both officials and advocates have maintained that ATD programs are more humane and less costly than detention.[70] In addition, ATDs have proven highly effective, resulting in an appearance rate of 99 per cent at court hearings between 2011 and 2013.[71] The high compliance could be related in part to the use of some highly restrictive forms of alternatives, like ankle bracelets, which international bodies like UNHCR have argued should not be considered alternatives. Critics argue that highly restrictive measures should be avoided because they stigmatize and humiliate immigrants, and, if used at all, should be considered alternative “forms” of detention and be made available to mandatory detainees.[72]

    Some scholars in the United States have expressed caution regarding the promotion of “alternatives” in the United States for fear that these programs could lead to the use of more restrictive non-custodial measures. One author notes that when ICE employs formal alternatives—including community supervision, reporting requirements, and ankle bracelets—“the agency generally initiates enrolment in these programs for individuals who have already been released from detention. As a result, the programs do not serve as a means of allowing release from detention. Instead, when ICE requires participation in such a program, it increases the level of supervision imposed rather than minimizing the restrictions.”[73]

    While advocates of alternatives are generally careful to exclude programs like ankle bracelets from their catalogues of acceptable measures (see, for example, UNHCR’s “Detention Guidelines” and the IDC's "There Are Alternatives"), the United States has justified ramping up its use of electronic monitoring devices and other surveillance technologies by employing the alternatives label. This has led to a windfall in profits for private prison companies, who are contracted to manage these programs. According to news reports, the GEO Group, which operates more than a dozen immigration detention centres in the United States, was paid $56 million annually “to manage ankle monitors for 10,000 immigrants, and to run telephone check-ins for 20,000 immigrants.”[74]

    Deaths in detention and concerns over healthcare. A 2010 New York Times report on deaths in detention found evidence of a “culture of secrecy” and a failure to address fatal flaws at detention centres.[75] These issues reportedly continue to persist, with poor medical care in particular contributing to the death of immigrants in detention.[76]

    As detention centres are subject to less stringent standards of custody, the medical treatment provided to detainees is often inadequate and staffs are generally overworked and under-qualified. The Nation magazine reported that because the financial penalties from the Bureau of Prisons for privately-run detention centres that fail to meet contractual obligations are so modest, it often costs less for the centres to pay the penalty than to meet the obligation and hire additional medical staff. The former clinical director of Big Spring Correctional Center told The Nation that his requests for detainees to be transferred to federal prison medical centres or local hospitals were often denied.[77] In addition, a joint report by the American Civil Liberties Union, Detention Watch Network, and National Immigrant Justice Center found that at least four detention facilities passed their Enforcement and Removal Operations inspections despite documented misgivings and failings related to medical treatments and protocol.[78]

    Between October 2003 and January 2010, 107 immigrants died in detention.[79] During the Obama administration, there have been 56 deaths of immigrants in ICE custody.[80] Further, between 1998 and 2014, at least seven immigrants committed suicide in the immigrant-only contract prisons described above.[81] While the United States government is highly secretive and non-transparent about the details surrounding immigrant deaths in detention, a review of 77 released medical case files revealed that in at least 25 of the cases the medical inadequacies of the detention centres “likely contributed to the premature death of the prisoners.”[82]

    Privatisation. Ramped up deportation efforts and the criminalisation of immigration breaches have led to strains in the country’s detention and incarceration capacities since the 1990s, prompting immigration authorities and the Bureau of Prisons to increase reliance on privately run facilities, which is justified as a cost-cutting measure.[83]

    The U.S. immigration detention infrastructure has been extensively privatised,[84] with 62 percent of all ICE immigration detention beds in the country as of 2015 operated by for-profit prison corporations, up from 49 percent in 2009.[85] These privately managed detention facilities held 23,000 individuals as of June 2015.[86] Further, as of 2015, for-profit prison corporations administered nine of the country’s 10 largest immigrant detention centres.[87] In this way, the U.S. detention infrastructure is strikingly similar to that of Australia and the United Kingdom, two other English-language countries whose large-scale immigration detention centre operations are completely or nearly completely privatized.

    Numerous concerns relating to the private management or ownership of immigration detention facilities have been raised in various venues. In July 2015, for instance, dozens of members of Congress signed an open letter to ICE protesting against the expansion of Adelanto detention facility, which is owned by for-profit company Geo Group, in light of allegations of medical negligence.[88] It was reported that in November 2015, hundreds of detainees at the Adelanto facility began a hunger strike to protest detention conditions at the centre.[89]

    These reports follow on years of criticisms of Geo Group and other major operators, like the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which ran the country’s first immigration detention centre, opened in the early 1980s in response to perceived needs to quickly ramp up detention capacity because of growing numbers of asylum seekers and migrants from the Caribbean.[90]

    CCA has been repeatedly criticized for issues such as inadequate staffing, poor conditions, high turnover of employees, and falsifying business records.[91] In 2006, federal investigators reported that conditions at one CCA centre were so inadequate that “detainee welfare is in jeopardy.”[92]

    For its part, the Geo Group, which operates 64 immigration detention facilities and prisons with 74,861 beds in the United States,[93] has been criticized for increasing its profits by lowering worker wages, reducing inmate access to healthcare, and ignoring safety and sanitation in its detention centres.[94]

    Private prison companies are far from being the only benefactors in the outsourcing of services to immigration detainees. Some scholars have attempted to uncover the “micro-economies” of detention facilities, detailing the large variety of services provided by private companies and the potential impact these could have on policy-making.[95]

    In 2012, the Global Detention Project surveyed the websites of hundreds of prisons and dedicated facilities used to hold immigration detainees to find details about which services are outsourced at these facilities. Based solely on this review of online information, the GDP was able to determine that of the hundreds of facilities that have been used in recent years to hold immigration detainees, no less than 83 explicitly mention on their websites some form of outsourcing.[96] In addition, of the two dozen dedicated immigration facilities, all but one report outsourcing services to private contractors. Private companies offer a range of services at detention sites, including food services, security, healthcare, among a host of other services.[97]  

    Detention at the border. The agency responsible for controlling the U.S. border and ports of entry is Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. The CBP apprehends hundreds of thousands of people annually at the southern border, most of whom are only briefly held before being deported through “expedited removal” or other summary procedures.

    While there are no statutes or regulations specifically governing these CBP short-term facilities, CBP has issued internal guidance on standards for them.[98] Holding cells are not required to contain beds, but detainees should be provided with meals and drinking water, access to bathrooms, and necessary medical treatment.[99] A 2008 CBP memorandum provides that detainees “should not be held for more than 12 hours.”[100] However, CBP guidance appears to contradict this memorandum by providing that agents will make reasonable efforts to provide a shower to detainees held for longer than 72 hours.[101]

    Despite CBP guidance, there have been numerous reports of extremely poor conditions at short-term detention facilities along the border. Former detainees describe freezing temperatures, being forced to sit and sleep on concrete surfaces for multiple days, receiving little or no access to food or water, being denied adequate medical care, and being denied communication with legal counsel or consulates.[102] In 2015, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class action lawsit in Arizona "to improve the horrific conditions in detention facilities" operated by the U.S. Border Patrol, which are commonly referred using the Spanish word "hierlas"--"iceboxes"--because of the extremely cold temperatures. 

    Offshore detention, anti-smuggling, and “alien interdiction.” Since the summer of 2014, when tens of thousands of children began arriving on the U.S. southern border fleeing Central American countries, there have been numerous reports about pressure and assistance from the United States to detain migrants abroad, particularly in Mexico.[103] In January 2016, the Mexican human rights group Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Matias, which assists migrants and asylum seekers crossing Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala, denounced the presence of U.S. immigration officers working inside detention facilities in Mexico.[104] In February 2016, a coalition of Mexican and U.S. NGOs field a lawsuit in the United States seeking details about U.S. financial aid to Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Migración.[105]

    U.S. efforts at extraterritorial immigration control date back many decades and have been influential in the development of similar practices in other countries, including most notably Australia, whose controversial “Pacific Solution” appears to have been inspired in part by U.S. Caribbean interdiction practices.[106] In the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan, responding to significant increases in Cubans and Haitians fleeing their countries, issued a “presidential proclamation” in which he “suspended” the “entry of undocumented aliens from the high seas” because it had become “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” He subsequently ordered the Coast Guard to board foreign vessels in international waters to determine whether passengers had documentation to enter the country.[107]

    In the early 1990s, renewed migration and refugee flows from Haiti and Cuba spurred the United States to seek assistance from other countries to accommodate intercepted Haitians, including Jamaica, the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, Belize, Venezuela, Honduras, and Suriname.[108] By early 1990s, the United States had access to a network of offshore “processing” facilities that extended from the Bahamas to Panama.[109] This period also saw the opening of the migrant facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.[110]

    A number of high-profile cases of “alien smuggling” in the early 1990s also led to offshore control strategies. In June 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive-9 (PDD-9), which directed several government agencies to “take the necessary measures to preempt, interdict, and deter alien smuggling in the U.S. … to interdict and hold smuggled aliens as far as possible from the U.S. border and to repatriate them when appropriate.”[111]

    Various elements of this directive later became part of an INS-led initiative called “Operation Global Reach.” Global Reach, launched in 1997, entailed an unprecedented expansion of U.S. anti­-smuggling and migrant interception activities. According to a 2001 Justice Department fact sheet, Global Reach was a “strategy of combating illegal immigration through emphasis on overseas deterrence.” The INS established “40 overseas offices with 150 U.S. positions to provide a permanent presence of immigration officers overseas,” “trained more than 45,000 host-country officials and airline personnel in fraudulent document detection,” and completed “special operations to test various illegal migrant deterrence methods in source and transit countries.”[112]

    A key geographical focus of Global Reach was Latin America. In 1996, the INS District Office in Mexico City began a series of intelligence and anti-smuggling operations called “Operation Disrupt,” which targeted migration and smuggling activities in the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, and Canada.[113] In 1997, after Disrupt activities became a part of the overall Global Reach initiative, the INS significantly broadened the scope of its offshore prevention strategies, undertaking annual multilateral interception operations with law enforcement personnel from dozens of Latin American countries. According to activists in these countries, during the operations, INS (and now DHS) agents accompanied local authorities to restaurants, hotels, border crossings, checkpoints, and airports to help identify and apprehend suspicious travelers.

    In a series of yearly press statements in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the agency announced the results of each operation. In 2000, for example, the INS declared that year’s Disrupt operation, “Forerunner,” to be the “largest anti-smuggling operation ever conducted in the Western Hemisphere.” Involving agents from six Latin America countries, the operation nabbed 3,500 migrants and 38 smugglers.[114]

    Forerunner was followed in 2001 by “Crossroads International,” which the INS again described as the “largest multinational anti-smuggling operation ever conducted in the Western Hemisphere,” this one resulting in the arrest of 75 smugglers and the interdiction of some 8,000 migrants from 39 countries. “The wide-ranging anti-smuggling operation was directed by the INS Mexico City District Office and involved . . . law enforcement officers in Columbia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, and Peru,” said a press statement.[115]

    Officials in countries participating in the U.S.-led anti-smuggling operations often received U.S. budgetary assistance to help detain and deport migrants. In 2000, the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB), which had sent a delegation to Central America to study regional migration issues, issued a scathing press release decrying U.S. interdiction activities in the region as well as efforts by the United States to pay countries in the region to detain and deport unwanted third-country nationals.[116]

    In another case, this one from 2001, a group of migrants from India who had paid thousands of dollars to be smuggled to the United States, were arrested in Mexico along with dozens of his compatriots as they approached the U.S. border.[117] Under pressure from the United States, Mexico deported the migrants to Guatemala, where they were placed in a squalid detention centre that received funding through the U.S. Embassy.[118] An investigative report published at the time established that there were two detention facilities in Guatemala City that had received funding through the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala City in direct response to a request from Guatemalan authorities, who complained that anti-smuggling operations were overwhelming their capacities.[119]

    One of the most important elements in U.S. extraterritorial efforts has been the Coast Guard, whose “national security” mandate was expanded beyond the Caribbean in the early 1990s.[120] Much of the Coast Guard’s efforts since then have focused on the Pacific coast of the Americas, which in the mid-2000s experienced increases in the number of Chinese and Ecuadorean smuggling vessels. Interdicted migrants have been sent to detention facilities in Guatemala City as well as one in the southern Mexican border town of Tapachula,[121] the same facility at which U.S. immigration officers are alleged to be present according to the 2016 release issued by the Mexican human rights group Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Matias.[122]

    Coast Guard interdiction efforts peaked in the mid-2000s, with interdiction numbers reaching some 10,000 per year during 2004-2005. The numbers tailed off during the final years of the Bush presidency, a trend that continued after the election of President Barack Obama. In 2011, the Coast Guard reported interdicting 2,474 migrants, followed by 2,955 in 2012, and 2,094 in 2013.[123]

    The Obama administration has pursued other extraterritorial strategies, including promoting detention practices in other neighbouring countries in addition to Mexico. In September 2010, for example, the U.S. Embassy in the Bahamas reported that United States Northern Command co-sponsored with the embassy a tour of the Krome immigration detention centre in Florida by members of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force Commando Squadron in order “to discuss best practices in immigration facility detention management.”[124]

     

    DETENTION INFRASTRUCTURE

    As the pressures to detain and remove increasingly larger numbers of non-citizens have mounted since the 1980s, U.S. immigration officials have repeatedly expanded the country’s overall detention capacity as well as the range of facilities used to keep people in detention. They have employed bed space in federal prisons, local jails, privately-run detention centres, juvenile detention centres, and family “residential” facilities, among other facilities. ICE and CBP also frequently use a large number of shorter-term holding facilities, including field offices and border facilities, to confine people for periods of time that exceed operating guidelines. 

    By the end of FY 2007, there were 961 sites either directly owned by or under contract with the federal government to confine or accommodate people for immigration-related reasons, according to ICE, even though the vast majority of these facilities do not appear to have been used during that fiscal year (see November 2007 “Facility List”).[125] According to a separate list of sites provided by ICE as part of a 2013 freedom of information request, during the three-year period 2010-2012, nearly 460 facilities were used to detain people for periods of more than two days.[126]  

    In the late 2000s, the Obama administration initiated reforms of ICE detention operations, which included recommendations provided in a ground breaking study published by ICE in 2009 titled “Immigration Detention: Overview and Recommendations.” The report concluded, “With only a few exceptions, the facilities that ICE uses to detain aliens were built, and operate, as jails and prisons to confine pre-trial and sentenced felons”[127] By 2015, the range of facilities had been dramatically reduced, with less than 200 facilities apparently in use at any given time and the use of some types phased out. Nevertheless, recent reports indicate that most immigration detainees continue to be held in jails or in prison-like facilities.[128]

    As of 13 April 2016, ICE’s “Detention Facility Locator” website identified only 78 detention sites.[129] However, according to one expert who reviewed this profile before publication, this figure seems exceedingly low and not truly indicative of the number of facilities in use in the country at any given moment.[130] The reviewer pointed to a study showing that on one day in September 2012, ICE had immigration detainees in no less than 189 facilities.[131] Additionally, a May 2016 TRAC report tallied a total of 637 facilities used during FY2015.

    Previously, DHS annual spending bills mandated that ICE “maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds” at any given time.[132] This quota was decreased to 30,539 for FY 2015.[133] In March 2016, a group of 56 members of the House of Representatives submitted a letter to the Subcommittee on Homeland Security calling for an end to the detention bed quota, stating that “[r]emoving the mandate language from the appropriations bill would bring ICE in line with the best practices of law enforcement agencies.”[134]

    “Family reception.” Since the arrival of tens of thousands of children from Central America beginning in mid-2014, the country has also expanded its use of family detention, which is euphemistically termed “family reception.” Currently, there are three family detention centres in the United States. The Karnes County Residential Center in Karnes, Texas, is operated by the GEO Group and has 532 beds.[135] The South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley Texas is operated by CCA and contains 2,400 beds, and the Berks County Family Residential Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania is operated by ICE and has 96 beds.[136] The Berks County centre had its license revoked by the state of Pennsylvania on 21 February 2016, but the centre continued to operate after losing its license.[137]

    ICE and CBP short-term detention facilities. ICE and CBP have employed short-term detention facilities at field offices and Border Patrol facilities.[138] There are numerous reports of people being held at these facilities for extended periods even though they are not equipped with basic amenities and operating guidelines indicate that they are intended to hold people for only very short periods.[139] Despite this fact, short-term facilities are generally not included on official lists or statistics, like ICE’s “Detention Facility Locator” website.

    In the case of the CBP short-term facilities, internal memos and guidance on standards stipulate that holding cells are not required to contain beds and that detainees “should not be held for more than 12 hours.”[140] Nevertheless, many people who have been detained at these facilities have denounced being forced to sit and sleep on concrete surfaces for multiple days, receiving little or no access to food or water, being denied adequate medical care, and being denied communication with legal counsel or consulates.[141] In 2015, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class action lawsit in Arizona "to improve the horrific conditions in detention facilities" operated by the U.S. Border Patrol in the Tucson, which are commonly referred to using the Spanish word "hierlas"--"iceboxes"--because of the extremely cold temperatures. 

    Despite these complaints, CBP does not facilitate access to information about its border detention facilities. In response to a joint 2013 GDP-Access Info Europe FOIA request asking for basic information about the facilities CBP had used in recent years to hold people for periods of 48 hours or more, a CBP FOIA officer responded, “We conducted a comprehensive search of files within the CBP databases for records that would be responsive to your request. Unfortunately, we were unable to locate or identify any responsive records, based upon the information you provided in your request.”[142] However, the L.A. Times, in 2015 coverage of the lawsuit brought against the Border Patrol in Arizona, reported: "During the first six months of 2013, 58,083 of 72,198 individuals held in the Tucson sector were in Border Patrol detention for 24 hours or longer. ... More than 24,000 people were held in Border Patrol holding cells for 48 hours or more."

    Similarly, ICE has “hold rooms” in field offices that can be used for short-term detention, as people await removal, hearings, medical treatment, or transfer to another facility. ICE’s “2011 Operations Manual ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards,” adopted as part of the Obama administration’s detention reforms, stipulate that “an individual may not be confined in a facility’s hold room for more than 12 hours.” However, according to information ICE provided as part of a 2013 freedom of information request, among the nearly 460 facilities used during the FY2010-2012 period to detain people for more than two days were some 60 sites that were coded as “hold” rooms.[143]  

    Detention centre conditions and non-mandatory guidelines. Numerous reports from journalists, NGOs, international watchdogs, and official oversight bodies have raised concerns about the conditions of detention in the United States.

    ICE’s 2009 report “Immigration Detention: Overview and Recommendations” found that in addition to the fact that most migrant detainees are kept in inappropriately carceral environments they also often suffer physical and sexual abuse, lack of access to adequate medical care, and inadequate nutrition and exercise.[144]

    Also in 2009, Amnesty International documented several serious issues in relation to immigration detention conditions in the United States and found that the conditions of detention did not meet either international human rights standards of ICE guidelines. These included the comingling of immigration detainees with individuals convicted of criminal offenses and the inappropriate and excessive use of restraints.[145]

    In 2010, an Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) report expressed concern due to a variety of issues, including a lack of amenities, inadequacies in healthcare, complaints about the quality and quantity of food and water, lack of telephone access, the frequent transfer of migrants to remote locations, lack of oversight and inspection of conditions, and the fact that a large amount of detention centres rank as “deficient” based on ICE’s standards.[146]

    A 2015 report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded that immigrant detainees were subject to “torture-like conditions” and in some instances faced threats and violence from guards.[147]

    The Center for Migration Studies and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in their joint 2015 report, described severely poor conditions in detention centres, including reports that women detainees often face sexual abuse, that government officials have pressured detainees to abandon legal claims, and that visitors have been confronted with arbitrary and cruel visitation policies. In addition, they found that many detention centres provide limited access to outside groups, with some reportedly barring groups that have expressed concerns about conditions or abuse.[148]

    Some observers have argued that part of the challenge in improving conditions in the U.S. immigration detention infrastructure is that detention guidelines are not mandatory. The guidelines were introduced in 2000 by immigration authorities and provide detailed non-binding standards for facilities holding immigration detainees, including issues such as access to attorneys and conditions of detention. In 2008, ICE announced the publication of 41 new performance-based detention standards, which were to be fully implemented by January 2010. These performance-based standards were also not legally binding.[149] Thus, organisations running detention facilities cannot be sued merely for failure to strictly adhere to the standards.[150]

    The lack of non-mandatory guidelines also has the potential to impact specific groups of detainees, such as transgender women. For example, guidelines released in June 2015 meant to provide increased protection to transgender immigrants provided that transgender detainees “shall be treated as a protective custody detainee for the duration of the intake process” and that decisions about how to hold the detainee should consider where the person would feel safest.[151] However, Human Rights Watch has argued that these guidelines are not routinely followed, leaving transgender women open to sexual assault, harassment by male detainees and guards, extended placement in solitary confinement, and inadequate access to necessary medical treatments.[152]

     


    [1] This issue was the subject of a 2016 lawsuit seeking details of U.S. financial aid to immigration authorities in Mexico. See Nina Lakhani, “Human rights groups sue U.S. over immigration payments to Mexico,” The Guardian, 12 February 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/12/human-rights-group-sue-immigration-mexico.

    [2] Center for Migration Studies New York, Immigration Detention: Behind the Numbers, 13 February 2014, http://cmsny.org/immigration-detention-behind-the-record-numbers/. These numbers do not include people who are detained at ports of entry by U.S. Customs and Border Protection or who are arrested and imprisoned as part of criminal procedures stemming from their immigration stations.

    [3] Migration and Refugee Services/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops & The Center for Migration Studies, Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System, 2015.

    [4] Pew Research Centre, U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013, 2 October 2014, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-deportations-of-immigrants-reach-record-high-in-2013/.

    [5] “Removals” are defined as “compulsory” while “returns” refer to “inadmissible” persons who are required to leave the country but whose departure is not based on a removal order. For a look at the history of U.S. removals and returns since 1892, see Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration and Statistics, “Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2013,” https://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics.

    [6] Doris Meissner, Donald M. Kerwin, Muzaffar Chishti, & Claire Bergeron, Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery, Migration Policy Institute, January 2013, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-enforcement-united-states-rise-formidable-machinery.

    [7] National Immigration Forum, The Math of Immigration Detention, 22 August 2013, http://immigrationforum.org/blog/themathofimmigrationdetention/; see also, Robert Morgenthau, The US Keeps 34,000 Immigrants in Detention Each Day Simply to Meet a Quota, The Nation, 13 August 2014, http://www.thenation.com/article/us-keeps-34000-immigrants-detention-each-day-simply-meet-quota/.

    [8] MSNBC, Immigrant deportations decline dramatically, 22 December 2015, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/immigrant-deportations-decline.

    [9] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report: Fiscal Year 2015, 22 December 2015, https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report/2016/fy2015removalStats.pdf.

    [10] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report: Fiscal Year 2015, 22 December 2015, https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report/2016/fy2015removalStats.pdf.

    [11] MSNBC, Immigrant deportations decline dramatically, 22 December 2015, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/immigrant-deportations-decline.

    [12] Department of Homeland Security, Fact Sheet: DHS FY 2017 Budget, 9 February 2016, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/09/fact-sheet-dhs-fy-2017-budget

    [13] National Immigration Forum, The Math of Immigration Detention, 22 August 2013, http://immigrationforum.org/blog/themathofimmigrationdetention/.

    [14] Stephanie J. Silverman, Immigration Detention in America: A History of its Expansion and a Study of its Significant, Working Paper No. 80, University of Oxford, 2010.

    [15] Marian Smith, INS—U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service History, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-usimmigration-insoverview.html.

    [16] Marian Smith, INS—U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service History, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-usimmigration-insoverview.html.

    [17] Niels Frenzen, U.S. Migrant Interdiction Practices in International and Territorial Waters, in Extraterritorial Immigration Control: Legal Challenges, Bernard Ryan and Valsamis Mitsilegas. Martinus, editors, Nijhoff Publishers, 2010, p. 384.

    [18] Michael Welch, Detained: Immigration Laws and the Expanding INS Complex, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002, P. 107.

    [19] Niels Frenzen, (USC Gould School of Law), Email correspondence with Michael Flynn (Global Detention Project), 26 March 2014.

    [20] Migration Policy Institute, Immigration Enforcement Spending Since IRCA, 2005.

    [21] Doris Meissner, Donald M. Kerwin, Muzaffar Chishti, & Claire Bergeron, Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery, Migration Policy Institute, January 2013, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-enforcement-united-states-rise-formidable-machinery.

    [22] Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1978).

    [23] Global Detention Project, Immigration Detention and the Law: U.S. Policy and Legal Framework, August 2010, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/content/immigration-detention-and-law-us-policy-and-legal-framework-0.

    [24] Donald Kerwin (Center for Migration Studies), email to Michael Flynn (Global Detention Project), 20 April 2016.

    [25] Global Detention Project, Immigration Detention and the Law: U.S. Policy and Legal Framework, August 2010, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/content/immigration-detention-and-law-us-policy-and-legal-framework-0.

    [26] Stephanie J. Silverman, Immigration Detention in America: A History of its Expansion and a Study of its Significant, Working Paper No. 80, University of Oxford, 2010.

    [27] Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163.

    [28] Global Detention Project, Immigration Detention and the Law: U.S. Policy and Legal Framework, August 2010, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/content/immigration-detention-and-law-us-policy-and-legal-framework-0.

    [29] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops & The Center for Migration Studies, Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System, 2015.

    [30] 8 U.S.C. 1226 (a), (c), 1225(b).

    [31] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops & The Center for Migration Studies, Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System, 2015.

    [32] Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003).

    [33] Zadvydas v. INS, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).

    [34] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops & The Center for Migration Studies, Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System, 2015.

    [35] For details about differences in detention practices between Europe and the United States, see the joint GDP-Access Info Europe report “The Uncounted,” December 2015, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/publications/special-report/uncounted-detention-migrants-and-asylum-seekers-europe.

    [36] Dora Schriro, Immigration Detention: Overview and Recommendations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, October 2009, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/odpp/pdf/ice-detention-rpt.pdf.

    [37] Seth Freed Wessler, ‘This Man Will Almost Certainly Die’, The Nation, 28 January 2016, http://www.thenation.com/article/privatized-immigrant-prison-deaths/.

    [38] Pew Research Center, The Rise of Federal Immigration Crimes, 18 March 2014, http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/03/18/the-rise-of-federal-immigration-crimes/

    [39] Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Immigration Prosecutions for September 2015 (Fiscal Year 2015), https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-secure/product/login.pl?_SERVICE=express9&_DEBUG=0&_PROGRAM=interp.annualreport.sas&p_month=dec&p_year=15&p_topic=40&p_agenrevgrp=&p_distcode=&p_trac_leadcharge=&p_progcat=&p_stat=fil.

    [40] Human Rights Watch, US: Reject Mass Migrant Prosecutions, 28 July 2015, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/28/us-reject-mass-migrant-prosecutions.

    [41] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops & The Center for Migration Studies, Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System, 2015.

    [42] Human Rights Watch, US: Reject Mass Migrant Prosecutions, 28 July 2015, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/28/us-reject-mass-migrant-prosecutions.

    [43] Stephanie J. Silverman, Immigration Detention in America: A History of its Expansion and a Study of its Significance, Working Paper No. 80, University of Oxford, 2010.

    [44] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops & The Center for Migration Studies, Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System, 2015.

    [45] Donald Kerwin, Piecing Together the US Immigrant Detention Puzzle One Night at a Time: An Analysis of All Persons in DHS-ICE Custody on September 22, 2012, 3 Journal on Migration and Human Security 4 (2015): 330-376.

    [46] Jeb Charles Johnson (Secretary, Department of Homeland Security), Memorandum about Secure Communities, 20 November 2014, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_secure_communities.pdf.

    [47] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Refugees and Migrants in the United States: Families and Unaccompanied Children, 24 July 2015, OAS/Ser.L/V/II. 155, https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Refugees-Migrants-US.pdf.

    [48] Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2202

    [49] American Immigration Council, A Guide to Children Arriving at the Border: Laws, Policies, and Responses, 26 June 2015, http://immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-children-arriving-border-laws-policies-and-responses.

    [50] Whether unaccompanied children can represent themselves in court became the subject of much notoriety in early 2016 when a federal judge argued that toddlers could learn immigration law and thus did not necessarily need legal representation during court proceedings. “I’ve taught immigration law literally to 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds,” said Jack H. Weil, a DOJ official and immigration judge. “It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of patience. They get it. It’s not the most efficient, but it can be done.” Washington Post, 5 March 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/can-a-3-year-old-represent-herself-in-immigration-court-this-judge-thinks-so/2016/03/03/5be59a32-db25-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html.

    [51] American Immigration Council, A Guide to Children Arriving at the Border: Laws, Policies, and Responses, 26 June 2015, http://immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-children-arriving-border-laws-policies-and-responses.

    [52] American Immigration Council, A Guide to Children Arriving at the Border: Laws, Policies, and Responses, 26 June 2015, http://immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-children-arriving-border-laws-policies-and-responses.

    [53] American Immigration Council, A Guide to Children Arriving at the Border: Laws, Policies, and Responses, 26 June 2015, http://immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-children-arriving-border-laws-policies-and-responses.

    [54] U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children Statistics FY 2016, http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children.

    [55] The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Letter from the President – Efforts to Address the Humanitarian Situation in the Rio Grande Valley Areas of Our Nation’s Southwest Border, 30 June 2014, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/30/letter-president-efforts-address-humanitarian-situation-rio-grande-valle.

    [56] International Organization for Migration, Dinamicas Migratorias en American Latina y el Carbibe, y entre ALC u la Union Europea, May 2015.

    [57] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Refugees and Migrants in the United States: Families and Unaccompanied Children, 24 July 2015, OAS/Ser.L/V/II. 155, https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Refugees-Migrants-US.pdf.

    [58] American Civil Liberties Union, RILR v. Johnson, 31 July 2015, https://www.aclu.org/cases/rilr-v-johnson.

    [59] Julia Preston, Judge Orders Stop to Detention of Families at Borders, New York Times, 20 February 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/us/judge-orders-stop-to-detention-of-families-at-borders.html?_r=0.

    [60] Muzaffar Chishti & Faye Hipsman, Fierce Opposition, Court Rulings Place Future Family Immigration Detention in Doubt, Migration Policy Institute, 15 September 2015, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fierce-opposition-court-rulings-place-future-family-immigration-detention-doubt. 

    [61] Cindy Carcamo, Judge Orders Prompt Release of Immigrant Children from Detention, Los Angeles Times, 22 August 2015, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-family-detention-children-20150821-story.html.

    [62] Texas Observer, “Health Agency to Press Forward with Licensing Child Detention Centers,” 12 February 2016, https://www.texasobserver.org/detention-center-child-care-to-hhsc/.

    [63] U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, United States of America profile, http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e492086.html.

    [64] U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook 2014, Statistical Annexes; U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook 2013, Statistical Annexes; U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook 2012, Statistical Annexes; U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Statistical Yearbook 2011, Statistical Annexes.

    [65] Global Detention Project and Access Info Europe, “The Uncounted,” December 2015, pp. 30-31, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/publications/special-report/uncounted-detention-migrants-and-asylum-seekers-europe.

    [66] 8 U.S.C. 1226(b).

    [67] Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Unlocking Liberty: A Way Forward for U.S. Immigration Detention Policy, http://lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/RPTUNLOCKINGLIBERTY.pdf; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops & The Center for Migration Studies, Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System, 2015.

    [68] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE Strategic Plan FY 2010-2014, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-reform/pdf/strategic_plan_2010.pdf.

    [69] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE Strategic Plan FY 2010-2014, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-reform/pdf/strategic_plan_2010.pdf.

    [70] American Civil Liberties Union, Alternatives to Immigration Detention: Less Costly and More Humane than Federal Lock-up, https://www.aclu.org/aclu-fact-sheet-alternatives-immigration-detention-atd.

    [71] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops & The Center for Migration Studies, Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System, 2015.

    [72] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops & The Center for Migration Studies, Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System, 2015.

    [73] Denise Gilman, Realizing Liberty: The Use of International Human Rights Law to Realign Immigration Detention in the United States, 26 Fordham Int’l L.J. 2 (2013).

    [74] National Public Radio, As Asylum Seekers Swap Prison Beds For Ankle Bracelets, Same Firm Profits, 3 December 2015, http://www.npr.org/2015/11/13/455790454/as-asylum-seekers-swap-prison-beds-for-ankle-bracelets-same-firm-profits.

    [75] Nina Bernstein, Officials Hid Truth of Immigrant Deaths in Jail, New York Times, 9 January 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/us/10detain.html?_r=0.

    [76] American Civil Liberties Union, Detention Watch Network, & National Immigrant Justice Center, Fatal Neglect: How ICE Ignores Deaths in Detention, February 2016.

    [77] Seth Freed Wessler, ‘This Man Will Almost Certainly Die’, The Nation, 28 January 2016, http://www.thenation.com/article/privatized-immigrant-prison-deaths/.

    [78] American Civil Liberties Union, Detention Watch Network, & National Immigrant Justice Center, Fatal Neglect: How ICE Ignores Deaths in Detention, February 2016.

    [79] Nina Bernstein, Officials Hid Truth of Immigrant Deaths in Jail, New York Times, 9 January 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/us/10detain.html?_r=0.

    [80] American Civil Liberties Union, Detention Watch Network, & National Immigrant Justice Center, Fatal Neglect: How ICE Ignores Deaths in Detention, February 2016.

    [81] Seth Freed Wessler, ‘This Man Will Almost Certainly Die’, The Nation, 28 January 2016, http://www.thenation.com/article/privatized-immigrant-prison-deaths/.

    [82] Nina Bernstein, Officials Hid Truth of Immigrant Deaths in Jail, New York Times, 9 January 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/us/10detain.html?_r=0; Seth Freed Wessler, ‘This Man Will Almost Certainly Die’, The Nation, 28 January 2016, http://www.thenation.com/article/privatized-immigrant-prison-deaths/.

    [83] Seth Freed Wessler, ‘This Man Will Almost Certainly Die’, The Nation, 28 January 2016, http://www.thenation.com/article/privatized-immigrant-prison-deaths/.

    [84] An exhaustive analysis of the U.S. detention system on a single night, 22 September 2012, concluded that 67 percent of detainees were held in facilities that were owned or operated by private prison corporations, and 90 percent of the beds in the 21 largest detention facilities were administered by private prison operators. Donald Kerwin, “Piecing Together the U.S. Immigrant Detention Puzzle One Night at a Time: An Analysis of All Persons in DHS-ICE Custody on September 22, 2012,” Journal on Migration and Human Security 4 (2015): 330-376.

    [85] Bethany Carson & Eleana Diaz, Grassroots Leadership, Payoff: How Congress Ensures Private Prison Profit with an Immigrant Detention Quota, April 2015, http://grassrootsleadership.org/reports/payoff-how-congress-ensures-private-prison-profit-immigrant-detention-quota.

    [86] Seth Freed Wessler, ‘This Man Will Almost Certainly Die’, The Nation, 28 January 2016, http://www.thenation.com/article/privatized-immigrant-prison-deaths/.

    [87] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops & The Center for Migration Studies, Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System, 2015.

    [88] Congressional Letter to ICE about Adelanto Conditions, 14 July 2015, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165708-adelanto-letter.html.

    [89] Kate Linthicum, Hundreds Launch Hunger Strike at Immigrant Detention Center in Adelanto, Calif., Los Angeles Times, 6 November 2015, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-immigrant-hunger-strike-20151106-story.html.

    [90] T. Don Hutto cofounded with Tom Beasley and Robert Crants the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) in 1983. In 1984, CCA opened the country’s first privately run detention centre using a former hotel called the Olympic Motel. This temporary facility, which according to CCA was opened at the behest of INS, was replaced soon thereafter by the Houston Processing Center, “CCA's first design, build and manage contract from the U.S. Department of Justice for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service) in Texas” (CCA website, “A Quarter Century of Service to America”).

    [91] Wil S. Hylton, The Shame of America’s Family Detention Camps, New York Times, 4 February 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/magazine/the-shame-of-americas-family-detention-camps.html; Scott Cohn, Private Prison Industry Grows Despite Critics, NBC News, 18 October 2011, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44936562/ns/business-cnbc_tv/t/private-prison-industry-grows-despite-critics/#.VwoZU2Mp1UQ.

    [92] Wil S. Hylton, The Shame of America’s Family Detention Camps, New York Times, 4 February 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/magazine/the-shame-of-americas-family-detention-camps.html.

    [93] The GEO Group, Inc., Locations, 2014, http://www.geogroup.com/locations.

    [94] Jeff Ostrowski, Dogged by Complaints, Prison Operate GEO Group Keeps Growing, Palm Beach Post, 25 August 2012, http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/dogged-by-complaints-prison-operator-geo-group-kee/nRHZ8/.

    [95] D. Conlon & N. Hiemstra, Examining the Everyday Micro-Economies of Migrant Detention in the United States, Geographica Helvetica 69(5), 2014.

    [96] Global Detention Project, A Survey of Private Contractor Involvement in U.S. Facilities Used to Confine People for Immigration-related Reasons, Global Detention Project Special Report, 9 July 2012, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/publications/survey-private-contractor-involvement-us-facilities-used-confine-people-immigration.

    [97] Global Detention Project, A Survey of Private Contractor Involvement in U.S. Facilities Used to Confine People for Immigration-related Reasons, Global Detention Project Special Report, 9 July 2012, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/publications/survey-private-contractor-involvement-us-facilities-used-confine-people-immigration.

    [98] American Immigration Council, Way Too Long: Prolonged Detention in Border Patrol Holding Cells, Government Records Show, 10 June 2015, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/way-too-long-prolonged-detention-border-patrol-holding-cells-government-records-show.

    [99] American Immigration Council, Way Too Long: Prolonged Detention in Border Patrol Holding Cells, Government Records Show, 10 June 2015, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/way-too-long-prolonged-detention-border-patrol-holding-cells-government-records-show.

    [100] American Immigration Council, Way Too Long: Prolonged Detention in Border Patrol Holding Cells, Government Records Show, 10 June 2015, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/way-too-long-prolonged-detention-border-patrol-holding-cells-government-records-show.

    [101] American Immigration Council, Way Too Long: Prolonged Detention in Border Patrol Holding Cells, Government Records Show, 10 June 2015, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/way-too-long-prolonged-detention-border-patrol-holding-cells-government-records-show. 

    [102] American Immigration Council, Way Too Long: Prolonged Detention in Border Patrol Holding Cells, Government Records Show, 10 June 2015, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/way-too-long-prolonged-detention-border-patrol-holding-cells-government-records-show.

    [103] There have been concerns about possible recent U.S. involvement in other countries, including Costa Rica. See, for instance, Zach Dyer, “Deporting 600 migrants back to Africa could be expensive, and impossible,” Tico Times, 25 April 2016, http://www.ticotimes.net/2016/04/25/costa-rica-to-deport-600-african-migrants.

    [104] CDH Fray Matias, “Privacion Indefinida De Libertad Y Violaciones De Derechos, Persisten En El Centro De Detencion Para Migrantes De Tapachula, Ante La Mirada Y Colaboracion De Funcionarios Estadounidenses,”20 January 2016, http://cdhfraymatias.org/sitio/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/COMUNICADO_0116.pdf.

    [105] Nina Lakhani, “Human rights groups sue US over immigration payments to Mexico,” The Guardian, 12 February 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/12/human-rights-group-sue-immigration-mexico.

    [106] Australian Parliament, Bills Digest No. 62 2001-02: Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2001, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, 2001.

    [107] Ronald Reagan, Presidential Proclamation No. 4865, 29 September 1981.

    [108] Christopher Mitchell, The Political Costs of State Power, in The Wall Around the West, Andreas, Peter, & Timothy Snyder, editors, Rowman & Littlefield: 2000, p. 88.

    [109] Tara Magner, A Less Than ‘Pacific’ Solution for Asylum Seekers in Australia, 16 Int’l J. of Refugee Law 1, (2004).

    [110] Congressional Research Service, Cuban Migration to the United States: Policy and Trends, CRS. 2, June 2009.

    [111] William J. Clinton, Alien Smuggling, Presidential Decision Directive-9, 18 June 1993.

    [112] U.S. Department of Justice, INS ‘Global Reach’ Initiative Counters Rise of International Migrant Smuggling, INS Press Release, 27 June 2001.

    [113] George Regan, Combating Illegal Immigration: A Progress Report, Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, 23 April 1997.

    [114] U.S. Department of Justice, INS and Central American Governments Disrupt Alien Smuggling Operations, INS Press Release, 17 October 2000.

    [115] U.S. Department of Justice, Largest Multinational Alien Smuggling Operation Results in 7,898 Arrests in Latin America and Caribbean, International Cooperation of 14 Nations Called Key to Success, INS Press Release, 27 June 2001.

    [116] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Statement on Visit to Central American Nations of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, 10 November 2000.

    [117] Miami Herald, Illegal Migrants Languish in Guatemala, 26 December 2011.

    [118] Michael Flynn, Donde Esta La Frontera?, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 2002.

    [119] Michael Flynn, Donde Esta La Frontera?, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 2002.

    [120] Anthony S. Tangemon, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, U.S. House of Representatives, 18 May 1999.

    [121] Michael Flynn, Donde Esta La Frontera?, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 2002.

    [122] CDH Fray Matias, “Privacion Indefinida De Libertad Y Violaciones De Derechos, Persisten En El Centro De Detencion Para Migrantes De Tapachula, Ante La Mirada Y Colaboracion De Funcionarios Estadounidenses,”20 January 2016, http://cdhfraymatias.org/sitio/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/COMUNICADO_0116.pdf.

    [123] U.S. Coast Guard, Alien Migrant Interdiction, http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg531/AMIO/FlowStats/currentstats.asp.

    [124] U.S. Embassy Nassau, Royal Bahamas Defence Force Officers Participate in Tour of Florida’s Primary Immigration Detention Center, Press Release, 11 September 2010.

    [125] Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Freedom of Information Act Office (Catrina M. Pavlik-Kenan), Letter to Michael Flynn (Global Detention Project), 7 November 2007, https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/US_Department_of_Homeland_Security_2007_1_1.pdf 

    [126] Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ERO Custody Management Division, “FY2010/2012 Count of Detainees un ICE Facilities with a Facility Length of Stay Over 2Days,” https://bit.ly/3oWZUJP  

    [127] Dora Schriro (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), Immigration Detention: Overview and Recommendations, October 2009, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/odpp/pdf/ice-detention-rpt.pdf.

    [128] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops & The Center for Migration Studies, Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System, 2015.

    [129] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Detention Facility Locator, last accessed on 13 April 2016.

    [130] Donald Kerwin (Center for Migration Studies), email to Michael Flynn (Global Detention Project), 20 April 2016: “They definitely use more than 78 facilities. Perhaps these 78 always have somebody in them or (by contract) are required to always have somebody in them. … On September 22, 2012, ICE held detainees in 189 facilities. That, we do know.” Donald Kerwin, “Piecing Together the U.S. Immigrant Detention Puzzle One Night at a Time: An Analysis of All Persons in DHS-ICE Custody on September 22, 2012,” Journal on Migration and Human Security 4 (2015): 330-376.

    [131] Donald Kerwin, “Piecing Together the U.S. Immigrant Detention Puzzle One Night at a Time: An Analysis of All Persons in DHS-ICE Custody on September 22, 2012,” Journal on Migration and Human Security 4 (2015): 330-376.

    [132] William Selway & Margaret Newkirk, Congress Mandates Private Jail Beds for 34,000 Immigrants, Bloomberg, 24 September 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-24/congress-fuels-private-jails-detaining-34-000-immigrants.

    [133] Esther Yu-His Lee, Homeland Security Head Insists ‘Bed Mandate’ is Not a Quota to Fill Detention Centers, Think Progress, 12 March 2014, http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2014/03/12/3391911/jeh-johnson-bed-mandate-quota/.

    [134] The Daily Outrage, Congress Members Weigh in Against Detention Bed Quota, 22 March 2016, Center for Constitutional Rights, http://www.ccrjustice.org/home/blog/2016/03/22/congress-members-weigh-against-detention-bed-quota.

    [135] National Immigrant Justice Center, Background on Family Detention, January 2015, http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Background%20on%20Family%20Detention.pdf.

    [136] National Immigrant Justice Center, Background on Family Detention, January 2015, http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Background%20on%20Family%20Detention.pdf.

    [137] Immigration Impact, A Visit to Berks Family Detention Center Makes Clear Why They Lost Their License, American Immigration Council, 22 February 2016, http://immigrationimpact.com/2016/02/22/berks-family-detention-center/.

    [138] Although the use of “subfield” offices for holding people for long periods of time has officially been halted, they previously were the subject of widespread attention when researchers uncovered information about nearly 200 “unlisted and unmarked subfield offices,” some located in commercial spaces and office parks. See Jacqueline Stevens, “Americas Secret ICE Castles,” The Nation, 16 December 2009, http://www.thenation.com/article/americas-secret-ice-castles/.

    [139] American Immigration Council, Way Too Long: Prolonged Detention in Border Patrol Holding Cells, Government Records Show, 10 June 2015, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/way-too-long-prolonged-detention-border-patrol-holding-cells-government-records-show.

    [140] American Immigration Council, Way Too Long: Prolonged Detention in Border Patrol Holding Cells, Government Records Show, 10 June 2015, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/way-too-long-prolonged-detention-border-patrol-holding-cells-government-records-show.

    [141] American Immigration Council, Way Too Long: Prolonged Detention in Border Patrol Holding Cells, Government Records Show, 10 June 2015, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/way-too-long-prolonged-detention-border-patrol-holding-cells-government-records-show.

    [142] Martha Terry (CBP FOIA Division), Letter to Lydia Medland (Access Info Europe), 16 August 2013.

    [143] Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ERO Custody Management Division, “FY2010/2012 Count of Detainees un ICE Facilities with a Facility Length of Stay Over 2Days,” http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/sites/default/files/foia_13-31381_fy10-fy12.xlsx.

    [144] Dora Schriro (Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Immigration Detention: Overview and Recommendations,” October 2009, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/odpp/pdf/ice-detention-rpt.pdf; Detention Watch Network, Expose & Close Report – Executive Summary, November 2012, https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/reports/DWN%20Expose%20and%20Close%20Executive%20Summary.pdf.

    [145] Amnesty International, USA: Jailed Without Justice, 25 March 2009,  http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/usa-jailed-without-justice?page=show.

    [146] Inter‐American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Immigration in the United States: Detention and Due Process, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

    [147] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, With Liberty and Justice for All: The State of Civil Right at Immigration Detention Facilities, September 2015, http://www.usccr.gov/OIG/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2015.pdf.

    [148] Migration and Refugee Services/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops & The Center for Migration Studies, Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System, 2015.

    [149] Amnesty International, USA: Jailed Without Justice, 25 March 2009, http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/usa-jailed-without-justice?page=show.

    [150] Global Detention Project, Immigration Detention and the Law: U.S. Policy and Legal Framework, August 2010, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/content/immigration-detention-and-law-us-policy-and-legal-framework-0.

    [151] Maria L. La Ganga, Transgender Detainees at High Risk of Assault in US Immigration Facilities, The Guardian, 23 March 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/23/transgender-detainees-sexual-assault-ice-custody.

    [152] Brian Stauffer, “Do You See How Much I’m Suffering Here?”, Human Rights Watch, 23 March 2016, https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/03/23/do-you-see-how-much-im-suffering-here/abuse-against-transgender-women-us.

    DETENTION STATISTICS

    Migration Detainee Entries
    273,220
    2023
    306,979
    2022
    189,847
    2021
    182,869
    2020
    510,854
    2019
    396,448
    2018
    323,591
    2017
    352,882
    2016
    307,342
    2015
    440,557
    2013
    477,523
    2012
    429,247
    2011
    363,064
    2010
    383,524
    2009
    378,582
    2008
    311,169
    2007
    256,842
    2006
    237,667
    2005
    231,142
    2004
    227,677
    2003
    198,307
    2002
    204,459
    2001
    Reported Detainee Population (Day)
    36,603
    5
    May
    2024
    2024
    26,898
    26
    March
    2023
    2023
    30,001
    20
    November
    2022
    2022
    16,721
    7
    May
    2021
    2021
    13,529
    28
    February
    2021
    2021
    19,068
    29
    September
    2020
    2020
    27,668
    20
    May
    2020
    2020
    37,703
    21
    March
    2020
    2020
    55,654
    3
    August
    2019
    2019
    Average Daily Detainee Population (year)
    28,289
    2023
    22,578
    2022
    19,254
    2021
    33,724
    2020
    Immigration Detainees as Percentage of Total Migrant population (Year)
    0.7%
    2015
    0.96%
    2013
    0.82%
    2010

    DETAINEE DATA

    Countries of Origin (Year)
    Mexico
    Guatemala
    Honduras
    El Salvador
    Ecuador
    2020
    Mexico
    Guatemala
    El Salvador
    Honduras
    Haiti
    2016
    Mexico
    Guatemala
    El Salvador
    Honduras
    Ecuador
    2015
    Mexico
    Honduras
    Guatemala
    El Salvador
    Ecuador
    2014
    Mexico
    Guatemala
    Honduras
    El Salvador
    Dominican Republic
    2013
    Mexico
    Guatemala
    Honduras
    El Salvador
    Dominican Republic
    2012
    Mexico
    Guatemala
    Honduras
    El Salvador
    Dominican Republic
    2011
    Mexico
    Guatemala
    Honduras
    El Salvador
    Dominican Republic
    2010
    Number of Asylum Seekers Placed in Immigration Detention (Year)
    44,270
    2016
    15,683
    2010
    Total Number of Children Placed in Immigration Detention (Year)
    103,140
    2015
    136,986
    2014
    38,759
    2013
    Number of Unaccompanied Children Placed in Immigration Detention (Year)
    15,381
    2020
    69,550
    2019
    49,100
    2018
    40,810
    2017
    59,170
    2016
    33,726
    2015
    57,496
    2014
    24,668
    2013
    13,652
    2012
    19,418
    2009

    DETENTION CAPACITY

    Total Immigration Detention Capacity
    45,000 (55000)
    2019
    44,000
    2017
    31,000
    2016
    33,400
    2009
    6,785
    1994

    ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

    Number of Detainees Referred to ATDs (Year)
    90,000
    2020
    22,201
    2014
    40,613
    2013
    17,454
    2011
    19,160
    2009
    Number of People in ATDs on Given Day
    281,613
    2023

    ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT DATA

    Number of Voluntary Returns & Deportations (Year)
    185,884
    2020
    267,258
    2019
    256,085
    2018
    340,056
    2016
    326,962
    2015
    405,589
    2014
    433,034
    2013
    415,900
    2012
    385,778
    2011
    381,593
    2010
    391,283
    2009
    359,795
    2008
    319,382
    2007
    289,974
    2006
    246,431
    2005
    240,665
    2004
    211,098
    2003
    165,168
    2002
    189,026
    2001
    188,467
    2000
    183,114
    1999
    174,813
    1998
    114,432
    1997
    69,680
    1996
    50,924
    1995
    45,674
    1994
    42,542
    1993
    43,671
    1992
    33,189
    1991
    30,039
    1990
    34,427
    1989
    25,829
    1988
    24,336
    1987
    24,592
    1986
    23,105
    1985
    18,696
    1984
    19,211
    1983
    15,216
    1982
    17,379
    1981
    18,013
    1980
    26,825
    1979
    29,277
    1978
    31,263
    1977
    38,471
    1976
    24,432
    1975
    19,413
    1974
    17,346
    1973
    16,883
    1972
    18,294
    1971
    17,469
    1970
    11,030
    1969
    9,590
    1968
    9,728
    1967
    9,680
    1966
    10,572
    1965
    9,167
    1964
    Number of Apprehensions of Non-Citizens (Year)
    454,001
    2017
    530,250
    2016
    662,483
    2013
    671,327
    2012
    678,606
    2011
    796,587
    2010
    889,203
    2009
    1,043,799
    2008

    PRISON DATA

    Criminal Prison Population (Year)
    2,300,000
    2018
    2,145,100
    2015
    2,228,424
    2012
    2,270,142
    2010
    2,307,504
    2008
    2,258,792
    2006
    2,135,335
    2004
    2,033,022
    2002
    1,937,482
    2000
    1,585,586
    1995
    1,148,702
    1990
    744,208
    1985
    503,586
    1980
    Percentage of Foreign Prisoners (Year)
    5.2%
    2014
    5.5%
    2013
    6.8%
    2011
    Prison Population Rate (per 100,000 of National Population)
    666
    2015
    731
    2010
    758
    2007
    725
    2004
    685
    2001
    655
    1998
    592
    1995
    501
    1992

    POPULATION DATA

    Population (Year)
    340,000,000
    2023
    331,000,000
    2020
    324,100,000
    2016
    321,774,000
    2015
    321,774,000
    2015
    318,857,000
    2014
    316,498,000
    2013
    314,112,000
    2012
    311,722,000
    2011
    309,347,000
    2010
    306,772,000
    2009
    304,094,000
    2008
    301,231,000
    2007
    298,380,000
    2006
    295,517,000
    2005
    227,224,681
    1980
    205,052,174
    1969
    International Migrants (Year)
    50,632,836
    2020
    50,661,149
    2019
    49,777,000
    2017
    46,627,100
    2015
    45,785,100
    2013
    44,183,643
    2010
    34,814,053
    2000
    23,251,026
    1990
    International Migrants as Percentage of Population (Year)
    15.28%
    2020
    15.3%
    2017
    14.5%
    2015
    14.3%
    2013
    14.2%
    2010
    12.2%
    2000
    9.1%
    1990
    Estimated Undocumented Population (Year)
    11,700,000
    2024
    11,000,000
    2015
    11,300,000
    2014
    11,250,000
    2013
    11,200,000
    2012
    11,500,000
    2011
    11,400,000
    2010
    Refugees (Year)
    389,335
    2023
    339,179
    2021
    340,846
    2020
    341,715
    2019
    313,241
    2018
    287,129
    2017
    272,898
    2016
    273,202
    2015
    267,222
    2014
    263,662
    2013
    262,023
    2012
    264,763
    2011
    264,574
    2010
    275,461
    2009
    279,548
    2008
    281,219
    2007
    843,498
    2006
    379,340
    2005
    508,222
    2000
    623,294
    1995
    464,887
    1990
    Ratio of Refugees Per 1000 Inhabitants (Year)
    0.84
    2016
    0.84
    2014
    0.82
    2013
    0.84
    2012
    Asylum Applications (Year)
    2,195,300
    2023
    315,899
    2019
    137,697
    2017
    204,721
    2016
    96,152
    2014
    68,243
    2013
    66,101
    2012
    Refugee Recognition Rate (Year)
    44.9
    2014
    66
    2011
    Stateless Persons (Year)
    0
    2022

    SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA & POLLS

    Gross Domestic Product per Capita (in USD)
    $ 57,638,000
    2016
    $ 56,469,000
    2015
    $ 54,630,000
    2014
    $ 52,980,000
    2013
    $ 51,457,000
    2012
    $ 49,781,000
    2011
    $ 48,374,000
    2010
    Remittances to the Country (in USD)
    $ 6,879,000,000
    2014
    $ 6,695,000,000
    2013
    $ 6,354,000,000
    2012
    $ 6,104,000,000
    2011
    $ 5,930,000,000
    2010
    Remittances From the Country (in USD)
    $ 53,590,000,000
    2013
    $ 52,511,000,000
    2012
    $ 50,556,000,000
    2011
    $ 50,776,000,000
    2010
    Unemployment Rate
    %
    2017
    %
    2016
    %
    2015
    %
    2014
    %
    2013
    %
    2012
    %
    2011
    %
    2010
    %
    2009
    Unemployment Rate Amongst Migrants
    4%
    2016
    5%
    2015
    6%
    2014
    7%
    2013
    8%
    2012
    9%
    2011
    10%
    2010
    Net Official Development Assistance (ODA) (in Millions USD)
    32,215.3
    2014
    31,496.6
    2013
    31,124.5
    2012
    31,937.3
    2011
    32,002.8
    2010
    Human Development Index Ranking (UNDP)
    5 (Very high)
    2014
    3 (Very high)
    2013
    3 (Very high)
    2012
    4 (Very high)
    2011
    4 (Very high)
    2010
    Integration Index Score
    9
    2015
    9
    2014
    9
    2011
    World Bank Rule of Law Index
    91
    0
    2013
    91
    -0.8
    2012
    91
    -1
    2011
    92
    -0.7
    2010
    Domestic Opinion Polls on Immigration
    72% of Americans say that undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. should be allowed to stay in the country legally, if certain requirements are met. 39% say legal immigration should be kept at its present level, while 31% believe legal immigration levels should be decreased and 24% believe levels should increase.
    2015
    "Would you say that the children now coming from Central America into the U.S. is…" 36% A crisis; 43% A serious problem, but not a crisis; 19% A minor problem; 2% Don’t know/Refused. "We should provide refuge and protection for all people who come to the U.S. when they are facing serious danger in their home country." 26% Completely agree; 45% Mostly agree; 17% Mostly disagree; 10% Completely disagree; 2% Don’t know/Refused. "The U.S. should NOT allow children now coming from Central America to stay because it will encourage others to ignore our laws and increase illegal immigration." %27 Completely agree; %32 Mostly agree; %27 Mostly disagree; %12 Completely disagree; %2 Don’t know/Refused. "While children from Central America are waiting for their cases to be heard, they should be released to the care of relatives, host families or churches rather than be detained by immigration authorities." 31% Completely agree; 40% Mostly agree; 15% Mostly disagree; 13% Completely disagree; 2% Don’t know/Refused.
    2014
    Pew Global Attitudes Poll on Immigration
    75
    2007

    LEGAL & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

    Does the Country Detain People for Migration, Asylum, or Citizenship Reasons?

    Yes

    2024

    Yes

    2023

    Yes

    2021
    Does the Country Have Specific Laws that Provide for Migration-Related Detention?

    Yes

    2023
    Detention-Related Legislation
    Name
    Year Adopted
    Last Amended
    8 United States Code (U.S.C.). Aliens and Nationality. § 1225 - Inspection by immigration officers; expedited removal of inadmissible arriving aliens; referral for hearing
    1952
    2008
    8 United States Code (U.S.C.). Aliens and Nationality. § 1231 - Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed
    1952
    2006
    8 United States Code (U.S.C.). Aliens and Nationality. § 1226 - Apprehension and detention of aliens
    1952
    1996
    8 United States Code (U.S.C.). Aliens and Nationality. § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
    1952
    1996
    8 United States Code (U.S.C.). Aliens and Nationality. § 1326 - Reentry of removed aliens
    1952
    1996
    8 United States Code (U.S.C.). Aliens and Nationality. § 1362 - Right to counsel
    1952
    1996
    8 United States Code (U.S.C.). Aliens and Nationality. § 1222 - Detention of aliens for physical and mental examination
    1952
    1996
    8 United States Code (U.S.C.). Aliens and Nationality. § 1537 - Custody and release after removal hearing
    1952
    1996
    8 United States Code (U.S.C.). Aliens and Nationality. § 1228 - Expedited removal of aliens convicted of committing aggravated felonies
    1952
    1996
    Do Migration Detainees Have Constitutional Guarantees?
    Yes/No
    Constitution and articles
    Adopted in
    Last amendend
    Yes
    The Constitution of the United States of America: Article 1 section 9; Amendment V; Amendment XIV Section 1
    1787
    1787
    Additional Legislation
    Name
    Year Adopted
    Last Amended
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 1003 - Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
    1958
    2015
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 235 - Inspection of Persons Applying for Admission (DHS)
    1997
    2014
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 208 - Procedures for Asylum and Witholding of Removal (DHS)
    1997
    2013
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 1208 - Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (EOIR)
    1997
    2013
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 1240 - Proceedings to Determine Removability of Aliens in the United States (EOIR)
    1997
    2013
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 1292 - Representation and Appearances (EOIR)
    1967
    2013
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 212 - Documentary Requirements: Nonimmigrants; Waivers; Admission of Certain Inadmissible Aliens; Parole (DHS)
    1952
    2011
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 214 - Nonimmigrant classes (DHS)
    1997
    2011
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 236 - Apprehension and Detention of Inadmissible and Deportable Aliens; Removal of Aliens Ordered Removed (DHS)
    1997
    2011
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 238 - Expedited Removal of Aggravated Felons (DHS)
    1997
    2011
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 240 - Voluntary Departure, Suspension of Deportation and Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (DHS)
    1997
    2011
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 241 - Apprehension and Detention of Aliens Ordered Removed (DHS)
    1997
    2011
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 244 - Temporary Protected Status for Nationals of Designated States (DHS)
    1991
    2011
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 280 - Imposition and Collection of Fines (DHS)
    1957
    2011
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 287 - Field Officers: Powers and Duties (DHS)
    1957
    2011
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 292 - Representation and Appearances (DHS)
    1958
    2011
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 1235 - Inspection of Persons Applying for Admission (EOIR)
    1997
    2009
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 1241 - Apprehension and Detention of Aliens Ordered Removed (EOIR)
    1997
    2008
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 1287 - Field Officers: Powers and Duties (EOIR)
    1985
    2004
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 1214 - Review of Nonimmigrant Classes (EOIR)
    2003
    2003
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 1238 - Expedited Removal of Aggravated Felons (EOIR)
    1997
    2003
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 1236 - Apprehension and Detention of Inadmissible and Deportable Aliens; Removal of Aliens Ordered Removed (EOIR)
    1997
    2002
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 1244 - Temporary Protected Status for Nationals of Designated States (EOIR)
    1991
    1999
    Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality. § 213 - Admission of Aliens on Giving Bond or Cash Deposit (DHS)
    1964
    1997
    Regulations, Standards, Guidelines
    Name
    Year Published
    Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies
    2017
    Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest
    2017
    Further Guidance Regarding the Care of Transgender Detainees
    2015
    Guidance Regarding Cases Pending Before EOIR Impacted by Secretary Johnson's Memorandum Entitled 'Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants'
    2015
    Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants
    2015
    Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention Directive
    2014
    Memorandum on 'Secure Communities'
    2014
    Review of the Use of Segregation for ICE Detainees
    2014
    Parental Interests Directive
    2013
    Civil Immigration Detention: Guidance for New Identification and Information-Sharing Procedures Related to Unrepresented Detainees With Serious Mental Disorders or Conditions
    2013
    National Detainer Guidance
    2012
    Transfer Directive
    2012
    Memorandum on Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Aliens
    2011
    Prosecutorial Discretion Memo: Certain Victims, Witnesses and Plaintiffs. 2011. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    2011
    Memoradum on Removal Proceedings of Aliens with Pending or Approved Petitions
    2011
    Memoradum on ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities
    2010
    ICE Strategic Plan
    2010
    Memorandum on Refocusing Fugitive Operations
    2009
    Policy Directive on Parole of Arriving Aliens with a Credible Fear of Persecution
    2009
    Policy Directive on Reporting Detainee Deaths
    2009
    The Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS 2008)
    2008
    Family Residential Standards
    2007
    National Detention Standards (NDS)
    2000
    Expedited/Fast Track Removal

    Yes

    2018
    Re-Entry Ban

    Yes

    2015
    Legal Tradition(s)

    Common law

    Federal or Centralised Governing System

    Federal system

    2015
    Centralised or Decentralised Immigration Authority

    Centralized immigration authority

    2015

    GROUNDS FOR DETENTION

    Immigration-Status-Related Grounds

    Detention to prevent unauthorised entry at the border

    2015

    Detention during the asylum process

    2015

    Detention for unauthorised entry or stay

    2015

    Detention to prevent absconding

    2015

    Detention for failing to respect non-custodial measures

    2015
    Non-Immigration-Status-Related Grounds in Immigration Legislation

    Detention on health-related grounds

    2015

    Detention for suspicion of terrorist-related activities

    2015
    Criminal Penalties for Immigration-Related Violations
    Fines
    Incarceration
    Year
    Yes
    Yes
    2015
    Grounds for Criminal Immigration-Related Incarceration / Maximum Length of Incarceration
    Grounds for Incarceration
    Maximum n. of Days
    Year
    Unauthorized entry
    730
    2015
    Unauthorized re-entry
    0
    2015
    Mandatory Detention
    Detention
    For
    Year
    Yes
    2018

    LENGTH OF DETENTION

    Maximum Length of Administrative Immigration Detention

    Yes

    2016
    Average Length of Immigration Detention

    34

    2019

    39

    2018

    44

    2017

    35.8

    2016

    35.6

    2015

    30.4

    2014

    29.4

    2013

    27

    2012

    29.7

    2011

    32.1

    2010

    31.2

    2009

    30.5

    2008

    36.9

    2007

    33.7

    2006

    38.5

    2005

    40.4

    2004

    37.1

    2003

    41.5

    2002

    40.2

    2001
    Maximum Length of Detention of Asylum-Seekers

    Yes

    2018

    DETENTION INSTITUTIONS

    Custodial Authorities
    Agency
    Ministry
    Typology
    Year
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2014
    Office of Refugee Resettlement
    Department of Health and Human Services
    Social Affairs
    2014
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2014
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2014
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Office of Refugee Resettlement
    Department of Health and Human Services
    Social Affairs
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Office of Refugee Resettlement
    Department of Health and Human Services
    Social Affairs
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2012
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2009
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2009
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2009
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2009
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2009
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2008
    Office of Refugee Resettlement
    Department of Health and Human Services
    Social Affairs
    2008
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2007
    Office of Refugee Resettlement
    Department of Health and Human Services
    Social Affairs
    2007
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2007
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2007
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2007
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2007
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2007
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2007
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2007
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2007
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    2006
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Department of Homeland Security
    Internal or Public Security
    Apprehending Authorities
    Name
    Agency
    Ministry
    Year
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    Law enforcement, border control and national security
    2018
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Immigration agency
    2018
    Detention Facility Management
    Entity
    Type
    Year
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Governmental
    2015
    Corrections Corporation America (CCA)
    Private For-Profit
    2015
    GEO Group
    Private For-Profit
    2014
    GEO Group
    Private For-Profit
    2014
    Geo Group
    Private For-Profit
    2014
    Immigration Centers of America
    Private For-Profit
    2014
    Jackson County
    Government-local
    2014
    LCS Corrections Services, Inc.
    Private For-Profit
    2014
    Corrections Corporation of America
    Private For-Profit
    2014
    Management and Training Corporation
    Private For-Profit
    2014
    Management and Training Corporation
    Private For-Profit
    2014
    Management and Training Corporation
    Private For-Profit
    2014
    Geo Group
    Private For-Profit
    2014
    Sarpy County Sheriffs Office
    Governmental
    2012
    Albany County Sheriff's Office
    Governmental
    2012
    Hall County Sheriff's Office
    Governmental
    2012
    Alexandria Sheriff's Office
    Governmental
    2012
    City of Henderson Police Deparment
    Governmental
    2012
    Randall County Sheriff
    Governmental
    2012