Related to this video here are some questions submitted to Director Nuefeld that remain unanswered:
ICE has been using private detention centers and local government detention centers to detain over 400,000 people a year (as of 2011) at taxpayers’ expense of roughly $2 billion (according to DHS’ budget report for 2014). Most of these individuals have no history of violent crime. The rate of detention has increased every year since ICE’s inception.
The cost of electronic monitoring for a respondent in removal proceedings is under $10,000. The cost of detaining a respondent during removal proceedings is estimated to be approximately $60,000. In 2010 when the Alternatives to Detention Program was introduced there was a 93.8% appearance rate. In sum, alternatives to detention save the taxpayers money, they are efficient, they would allow for more efficient allocation of resources and they are much more humane that caging humans, yet ICE does not use this method.
Why has ICE been reluctant to embrace Alternatives to Detention? Has ICE considered revising their policy in regard to Alternatives to Detention and Supervised Release? How does ICE justify the considerable expense to the taxpayers for the unnecessary detention of individuals that could be released under Alternatives to Detention?
9. Individuals in ICE detention are subjected to inhumane conditions including: 23 hour a day lockdown, lack of proper nutrition, lack of access to medical care, separation from their family (in many cases not afforded any visitation), overcrowded conditions, and sedation by detention officials. Individuals being detained based on immigration violations are often housed with convicted murderers, rapists, and violent gang members. Many individuals that are unable to make bond take an order of removal simply to get out of these deplorable conditions.
What steps, if any, is ICE taking to insure the safety and humane treatment of their detainees that are being held at third party facilities? Has ICE considered separating detainees being held on immigration charges from those being held on criminal charges/convictions?
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the largest ICE detention contractor, operating a total of fifteen ICE-contracted facilities and 60 dual purpose facilities nationwide. GEO Group, Inc. (GEO), the second largest ICE contractor, operates seven facilities with a total of 7,183 beds. In FY2012 CCA and GEO reported annual revenues of $1.8 billion and $1.5 billion respectively. Both are publically traded on the stock exchange. The multi billion dollar a year business of ICE detention is growing every year at significant profits to its shareholders.
Would ICE mandate the disclosure of any financial conflicts of interest that may exist as the result of ICE staff owning stock in any private detention facilities or having money invested in mutual funds which include investments in private detention facilities?
How would ICE justify the clear conflict of interest in the guaranteeing of minimal occupancy for ICE contracted facilities?
How does ICE hold these private facilities accountable to the public since they are exempt from disclosure requirements that are imposed on government-run facilities?