[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HOLIDAY ON ICE: THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S NEW
IMMIGRATION DETENTION STANDARDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 28, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-104
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-543 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania JARED POLIS, Colorado
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
MARK AMODEI, Nevada
Richard Hertling, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement
ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TED POE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 28, 2012
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 1
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 2
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary....... 11
The Honorable Pedro R. Pierluisi, a Representative in Congress
from Puerto Rico, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration
Policy and Enforcement......................................... 12
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 13
WITNESSES
Kevin Landy, Assistant Director, Office of Detention Policy and
Planning, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Oral Testimony................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
Jessica M. Vaughan, Policy Director, Center for Immigration
Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 31
Prepared Statement............................................. 33
Chris Crane, President, National ICE Council
Oral Testimony................................................. 39
Prepared Statement............................................. 41
Michelle Brane, Director, Detention and Asylum Program, Women's
Refugee Commission
Oral Testimony................................................. 48
Prepared Statement............................................. 51
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............. 3
Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Article from The New York Times titled ``Detention Is No
Holiday''.................................................. 14
Letter to the Honorable Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on
the Judiciary.............................................. 16
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 74
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Pedro R. Pierluisi, a
Representative in Congress from Puerto Rico, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............. 79
Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............. 81
Press Release, February 28, 2012, from the Honorable Lamar Smith,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 199
Prepared Statement of Cheryl Little, Esq., Executive Director,
Americans for Immigrant Justice (formerly Florida Immigrant
Advocacy Center)............................................... 200
HOLIDAY ON ICE: THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S NEW
IMMIGRATION DETENTION STANDARDS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration
Policy and Enforcement,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:36 p.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Elton
Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, Lofgren, Conyers,
King, Gowdy, Ross, Waters, and Pierluisi.
Staff present: (Majority) Dimple Shah, Counsel; Marian
White, Clerk; and (Minority) Tom Jawetz, Counsel.
Mr. Gallegly. I call the Subcommittee to order. I would ask
unanimous consent that the Chair would have the right to recess
the proceedings at any time should there be a vote call on the
floor.
Hearing no objection, that will be the order.
Today our hearing focuses on the detention of illegal and
criminal immigrants. From the onset, I would like to make it
clear that no Member is against the humane treatment of
detainees. However, I am concerned that ICE's new Performance-
Based Detention Standards, because they unreasonably put the
interests of removable aliens ahead of the interests of the
Nation.
Full implementation of the new detention standards is
likely to be extremely costly. Nevertheless, cost estimates are
not addressed at any point in the 400-plus page standards. Has
ICE considered the impact of this new policy on America and the
American taxpayers?
To make matters worse, the impetus for the new standards
have little to do with a need for detention reform. Rather,
they are part of an extensive public relations effort aimed at
pro-amnesty advocates.
Shortly after the detention standards were released, DHS
announced the opening of a new detention facility in Texas. A
San Antonio newspaper describes it as being more like a private
college setting than a detention center.
It is outrageous that the immigration detention facilities
have morphed into college campuses, particularly when we are
dealing with a facility that costs the taxpayer $32 million to
start with. This is especially true when American families
struggle to make ends meet.
However, even these changes do not make advocates happy.
They have consistently said the new detention facilities are
improved, but do not go far enough. What will ever enough be?
Numerous statements issued by the advocates make clear they are
opposed to the immigration detention in and of itself.
DHS's new detention standards are part of a trend. The
trend began with leaked DHS memos that discussed mechanisms the
agency could utilize to circumvent Congress and provide amnesty
by administrative action. It continued with DHS issuing memos
regarding priorities whereby potentially millions of illegal
immigrants could be exempt from removal. These memos were
superseded by new prosecutorial discretion policy allowing
those in violation of the law, who are already in the removal
process or ordered removed, to remain here undisturbed.
And now, we have the release of new standards involve
policies for detainee-friendly detention centers for those
illegal and criminal immigrants that DHS does intend to detain,
and, again, all at taxpayer expense.
I have a recommendation to the Administration. The best way
to help immigration detainees is not to roll out the welcome
mat at detention facilities. It is, reduce the amount of time
they spend in detention by making better use of the tools
Congress has provided to process illegal immigrants for removal
more expeditiously. It would be best if ICE spent more time,
energy, and resources on removing illegal and criminal
immigrants.
With that, I will yield to the gentlelady, the Ranking
Member, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. In September of 2007, an armed ICE agent
transported Ms. M.C. from the Krome Detention Center to the
Broward Transitional Center. But instead of driving straight to
Broward, the agent took her to his house, forced her to perform
oral sex, and then forcibly raped her. According to documents
related to his criminal conviction, the agent kept his firearm
in his gun belt attached to his waist at all times during the
sexual assault.
I ask unanimous consent to enter the full statement of Ms.
M.C. into the record.
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Ms. Lofgren. This was not an isolated incident. Four years
earlier, another ICE agent was charged criminally with raping a
female detainee during transportation, and last fall an ICE
guard was criminally charged after he sexually assaulted at
least 9 women during transportation.
Male guards have also sexually assaulted women while
performing strip searches. In 2007, women at the San Diego
Correctional Facility filed complaints about a guard who
sexually assaulted them when strip searching them in a secluded
room. Another guard in Texas pled guilty to multiple criminal
charges stemming from similar abuses.
Some of the detention reforms at issue today were adopted
to protect female detainees from such horrors. The new
standards, for example, prevent a lone officer from
transporting or strip searching a single detainee of the
opposite sex. If this were in place earlier, Ms. M.C. and
countless other women could have been spared rape.
The new reforms could have spared Francisco Castaneda from
amputation of his penis and then death. He testified in 2007
before this Subcommittee about the serious medical neglect he
experienced during his 10 months in detention. Suffering from
excruciating pain, he spent months begging for a simple biopsy
that had been repeatedly ordered by medical professionals. ICE
refused to authorize the medically-ordered biopsy at every
turn, claiming it was elective. ICE finally released Francisco
because of his deteriorating health and the threat of
litigation. He took himself to an emergency room where a simple
biopsy confirmed that he had penile cancer. Because it had not
been caught earlier, the cancer metastasized and spread
throughout his body. After having his penis amputated and
receiving chemotherapy, Francisco came to Congress with his
teenage daughter to tell his story so that others would not
have suffered unnecessarily the way he had. He died just 4
months later.
According to the judge who presided over his Federal
lawsuit, the case represented ``one of the most, if not the
most, egregious 8th Amendment violations the court has ever
encountered.'' The United States ultimately settled the lawsuit
for $2 million.
This Subcommittee also considered the story of Jason Ng, a
computer engineer from New York with a U.S. citizen wife and
two U.S. children. Although he had a pending green card
petition and no criminal history, Jason spent more than a year
in detention due to government error in a previous proceeding.
In detention he complained about crippling back pain, but
guards said he was just faking. They ignored his request for
medical care. They even denied his request for a wheelchair.
One day guards pulled him from his bed, dragged him face down
through the facility, placed him in restraints, and pressed him
up against the wall while he screamed and cried for help. These
photographs taken the following day at the hospital show the
bruises that he suffered. When doctors finally examined Jason,
they diagnosed him with advanced liver disease and a fractured
spine. Despite a broken back, guards kept him restrained in the
hospital until he died 5 days later.
Other photographs here are of Boubacar Bah, who died in a
similar fashion. While at the Elizabeth Detention Center in New
Jersey, a detainee saw Boubacar collapse and violently hit his
head on the floor. He was taken to the medical ward in
shackled, but guards mistook his calls for help and erratic
behavior as resistance, so they moved him to a disciplinary
cell. He lay in that cell for 14 hours, despite repeated
notations that he was unresponsive and foaming at the mouth.
When they finally took him to the hospital, doctors diagnosed
him with inter-cranial bleeding. They rushed him into surgery,
but it was too late. He had slipped into a coma and died 4
months later.
Incidents like these led this Subcommittee to hold hearings
in 2007 and '08. Those hearings uncovered policies that led to
suffering and death. We learned that ICE was tracking the
amount of money it was saving by denying critical medical care
for things like HIV, and head injuries, and tuberculosis. ICE
could not even account for the detainees who died in its
custody. Only after an extensive search ordered by new director
Morton did they learn about 10 previously untracked deaths
between 2004 and 2010.
To its credit, this Administration came in, admitted the
problem, and fundamental change was necessary to prevent
unnecessary suffering and death. That is the purpose behind the
new detention standards at issue today. So, I was deeply
disappointed to learn of the title of this hearing, ``Holiday
on ICE.'' Certainly Francisco, Jason, or Boubacar would not
think that their deaths in custody were any kind of a joke. I
know, and Mr. Gallegly called me to say that he regretted the
title of this hearing, and I accept that call on his part.
However, I do not accept the criticism of the Administration
expressed by the Chairman of the full Committee in his press
release where he criticizes these detention standards as a
hospitality guideline.
I do not think that it is a hospitality guideline to
prevent rape of detainees, women who have done nothing wrong,
to prevent death and abuse of detainees in custody. I do not
think women deserve to be raped. I do not think individuals
deserve to be tortured through physical or medical abuse or
gross medical neglect. I do not think women deserve to be
shackled when they give birth.
Throughout this Congress, we have seen elements of what I
think of as sort of a Republican war on immigrants. In today's
hearing, I am afraid we are starting to see where the war meets
the Republican war on women.
And just a note on cost. You know, it costs about $122 a
day to keep a detainee, a civil detainee, locked up in the
immigration system. The new, less restrictive system is
estimated to cost a little over $56 a day. So, these new
standards will avoid torturing individuals. They will avoid the
$2 million judgments for hurting or killing people, and it also
will cost us less than half of the current costs.
So, Mr. Chairman, I regret the focus of this hearing. I
think it is wrong. And I look forward to having an opportunity
to confer on this matter further, and yield back.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I would just like to respond to one thing in your
statement, Zoe, and that was something that was laid before me
yesterday, that we give anecdotal examples, none of which goes
unrecognized as serious. None of these anecdotal examples seem
to be more serious to me than one came across my desk yesterday
when a criminal alien was released recently from detention
because his native land would not repatriate him, and within
days of the time he was released, he murdered 5 people in San
Francisco.
With that, I would yield----
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, since you have raised that
issue, I think it is only fair if I be given a few----
Mr. Gallegly. Okay.
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. Moment to respond. That
individual should have been deported to Vietnam. Vietnam
refused to take him. As you will recall, we had a hearing on a
bill authored by a Republican Member of the Committee that was
so poorly drafted, it would have prevented Benjamin Netanyahu
from being able to come to the United States to deliver his
address to the Joint Session of Congress.
At that time, I indicated a willingness to write a bill
that would actually work to make sure that an individual like
this could, in fact, be deported. I know that there has been
some discussion at the staff level, but we have not reached an
agreement on a workable bill. And I would urge the Chairman to
intervene to see if we cannot get some consensus because there
is not an argument.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentlelady can rely on that. It was not
my intent to get into a debate when we have a hearing going on.
The only point I was trying to make is that there are many
anecdotal examples that none of us condone, none of us can
accept, and we are all, I believe, charged with the
responsibility of trying to find the best way to correct it.
And the status quo is not working.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the
full Committee, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me say to the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Lofgren, that we actually marked up a bill in
the full Judiciary Committee, the Secure Communities Act, which
would have prevented that individual from being released, and
would have prevented the deaths of those 5 individuals. And I
am sorry she voted against that bill because if she had have
voted for it, we might have had it passed by this time.
Mr. Chairman, on February 28th, 2012, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement released about 400 pages of new
Performance-Based National Detention Standards. But the
Administration's new detention manual reads more like
hospitality guidelines for illegal immigrants.
According to the preface, the detention standards
supposedly ``were drafted with the input of many ICE personnel
across the Nation, as well as the perspectives of non-
governmental organizations.''
But the preface fails to disclose that the union that
represents ICE detention officers, who are among those most
affected by these new standards, was not a part of a process
that will have a large impact on their own safety. Neither were
advocates for immigration law enforcement or advocates for
American taxpayers who will have to pay for the new standards.
Instead, ICE consulted with those who appeared to consist
primarily of pro-illegal immigrant groups when it drafted the
new detention standards.
Under this Administration, detention looks more like
recess. While funds for American students' physical education
classes are being cut, the new detention standards expand
recreation for illegal immigrants. For instance, illegal and
criminal immigrants in ICE custody will have options such as
soccer, volleyball, and basketball. It would be nice if all
American students got those options.
ICE wasted no time in putting their new standards into
practice. Immediately following the release of the new
detention manual, ICE opened up a new, state-of-the-art
detention facility in Karnes City, Texas. The new detention
facility was built with specifications set by ICE, which
involved limited public scrutiny and no congressional
oversight.
Among the new amenities, the Karnes City facility contains
a library with free Internet access, cable TV, an indoor gym
with basketball courts, soccer fields, and sand, and that is
for beach volleyball. Instead of guards, unarmed ``resident
advisors'' patrol the grounds. And the cost of the complex:
over $30 million taxpayer dollars.
To make matters worse, the new standards expand the
complaint process against ICE officers and facilities. It
offers numerous avenues for complaints, unlike the Bureau of
Prisons, which has a single streamlined process for complaints.
Detained illegal immigrants can complain to ICE's Office of
Professional Responsibility, the Department of Homeland
Security Office of the Inspector General, or the DHS Office of
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
With no protections against false accusations of abuse
filed by detainees, and a process biased against ICE agents,
the new detention standards could subject the agency and its
employees to constant and frivolous lawsuits.
It is no surprise that an agency that considers illegal and
criminal immigrants it detains as its ``customers,'' ranks--
listen to this, Mr. Chairman--ranks 222nd out of the 240
government agencies surveyed by the Partnership for Public
Service for employee satisfaction.
This hearing is entitled, ``Holiday on ICE,'' because ICE
has decided to upgrade accommodations for detained illegal and
criminal immigrants. While we would all like to be upgraded, we
do not have the luxury of billing American taxpayers or making
Federal law enforcement agencies our concierge.
The Obama Administration should put the interests of
American taxpayers ahead of illegal and criminal immigrants.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from Michigan from Michigan,
the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly. With your
permission, I would like to yield two of my minutes to the
former attorney general of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Pedro
Pierluisi.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Pierluisi, 2 minutes.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Conyers.
Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully say that I find the
premise of today's hearing to be misguided and, frankly,
appalling. Our immigration detention system has serious
problems. The evidence is as well documented as it is
heartrending.
Over 110 people have died in immigration custody since
2003. Too many others have been subject to rape, abuse, or
medical neglect. Although there is still a long way to go, DHS
and ICE deserve credit for making important strides in
reforming our detention system as reflected in the 2011
National Detention Standards.
Rather than welcoming these common sense standards and
seeking their implementation at ICE facilities across the
Nation, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
claimed that detainees are now being pampered. That assertion
does not even pass the laugh test. But nobody should find it
amusing.
Mr. Chairman, all Members of this Subcommittee are blessed
to be Americans, citizens of this great democracy, which has
done so much to make the world a better, freer, more humane
place. But this love of country should be tempered by a sense
of humility, rooted in the knowledge that we could just as
easily have been born in a darker corner of this world where
liberty or economic opportunity is in short supply. We should
have more empathy for men and women who have left behind
everyone and everything they know in order to reach our shores,
especially since many detainees have violated no criminal law,
and those that did have already served their sentences.
Instead of simply paying lip service to the idea of humane
treatment, we ought to promote policies that treat people with
decency and compassion, guided by the understanding that there,
but for the grace of God, go I.
I yield back.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
Chairman Gallegly and to our full Committee Chairman, Lamar
Smith, I have always been proud of the fact that the House
Judiciary Committee has always evaded the partisan tiffs that
frequently characterize what goes on in the House of
Representatives. And I regret that today we are confronted with
a dilemma that I would like to address and see if we can
somehow rebuild the good will that has always existed on this
Committee.
Now, as I look across this audience, I would be pretty
naive not to notice that there are many more women in this
audience than is usually the case. And I think it is because of
the nature of the hearing that is going on today.
I want to remind everybody, and with the permission of the
Chairman, I would like to put into the record the New York
Times editorial of today by this famous Haitian writer,
Haitian-American writer--she has citizenship in both
countries--Ms. Edwidge Danticat, whose article is entitled,
``Detention is No Holiday.''
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Conyers, I assume you are referring to
what was, I believe, to be an op-ed, not an editorial?
Mr. Conyers. Oh, I am sorry. Yes, it was an op-ed.
Mr. Gallegly. Okay. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, here is the problem, and this is a sentence that comes
out of the article, the op-ed that is going into the record by
Ms. Danticat, whom I must confess I just talked to on the phone
an hour ago to let her know that I had delivered a letter to
our Chairman, Lamar Smith, which I also ask unanimous consent
to include in the record, please.
Mr. Gallegly. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much. I will read just a
sentence from Ms. Danticat. ``We are being too generous in
deciding to give them safe water, an hour a day of recreation,
and of offsite medical care if they are in danger of dying.''
And I think that is what it comes down to.
And I conclude with this. I have the highest respect for
the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John
Morton, its director. I know of the good reputation of the
assistant director, Kevin Landy, who is our lead off witness
today. And so, I want us to balance what we say against what
our Ranking Member, Zoe Lofgren of California, has recited
about the kind of conditions that people are frequently forced
to live in. And I hope that we can come to reasonable
conclusions.
And I thank the Chairman for his time, and I yield back
whatever is left.
Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentleman has expired. As you
obviously are aware, the bells have rung for, I believe it is
two votes, if I am not mistaken. And we will recess until we
complete the two votes. And I would assume that we ought to be
able to reconvene within about 25 minutes.
[Whereupon, at 2 p.m., the Subcommittee recessed, to
reconvene at 3:08 p.m., the same day.]
Mr. King [Presiding]. I call this hearing back to order.
We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses today. Each
of the witnesses' written statements will be entered into the
record in its entirety. I ask that each witness summarize his
or her testimony in five or minutes or less. To help you stay
within the time, there is a timing light on your table. When
the light switches from green to yellow, you will have 1 minute
to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it
signals that the witness' 5 minutes have expired.
Introduction of the witnesses. Mr. Kevin Landy is assistant
director for the Office of Detention Policy and Planning of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security. The Office of Detention Policy and
Planning leads ICE's efforts to overhaul the current
immigration detention system. Prior to joining ICE, Mr. Landy
served for 13 years on Senator Joseph Lieberman's staff on the
Committee on Homeland Security and on Government Affairs. He
received his bachelor's degree from Amherst College and his law
degree from Yale Law School.
And Ms. Jessica Vaughan. As the policy director at the
Center for Immigration Studies, she has been with the center
since 1991, where her area of expertise is administration and
implementation of immigration policy. Prior to joining the
center, Ms. Vaughan was a foreign service officer with the U.S.
State Department, and she holds a master's degree from
Georgetown, and a bachelor's degree from Washington College in
Maryland.
I would also welcome Mr. Chris Crane. He currently serves
as the president of the National Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Council 118, American Federation of Government
Employees. He has worked as an immigration enforcement agent
for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement--that is ICE--at
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security since 2003. Prior to
his service at ICE, Chris served for 11 years in the United
States Marines.
And then we have Ms. Michelle Brane. Ms. Brane is the
director of the Detention and Asylum Program at the Women's
Refugee Commission, which focuses on the critical protection of
needs of women and children asylum seekers in the United
States. She has more than 18 years' experience working on
immigration and human rights issues. Ms. Brane holds a
bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan and a law
degree from Georgetown University.
I thank all the witnesses for being here and for your
testimony in advance, and then recognize Mr. Landy for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF KEVIN LANDY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
DETENTION POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Landy. Vice-Chairman King, Ranking Member Lofgren, on
behalf of Secretary Napolitano and Director Morton, thank you
for the opportunity to highlight the ongoing efforts of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement to reform our Nation's
immigration detention system.
The Nation's immigration detention system expanded rapidly
in the last 15 years, from an average daily population of less
than 7,500 detainees in 1995 to more than 33,000 in 2011. This
growth has presented challenges for the agency, and since 2009,
Director Morton has made reforming ICE's detention system a top
priority.
We wanted to develop facilities more appropriate for the
agency's detained population, and to improve conditions at
existing facilities. We wanted to use fewer facilities located
closer to the location of apprehension, to reduce the number of
people transferred away from their families, communities, and
attorneys.
We wanted to ensure that detainees received adequate
medical and mental health care, and that detention facilities
receive necessary Federal oversight. And we wanted to do this
in a fiscally prudent way.
And, in fact, the agency's reforms have produced concrete
changes, while also achieving greater operational efficiency. I
am pleased to highlight some of these reforms today.
Last month, ICE promulgated the 2011 performance-based
national detention standards. The standards cover a wide range
of topics relevant to the management of detention facilities,
including all necessary security safeguards. And in most
respects, they are identical to the standards developed in 2008
by the prior Administration.
In this new version, however, we have made important and
targeted revisions to better address the needs of ICE's unique
detainee population. For example, the standards improve medical
and mental health care services, reinforce protections against
sexual abuse and assault, enhance opportunities to engage in
religious practices, and in other ways establish new safeguards
defining the appropriate treatment of detainees.
It is important to note, however, that our new detention
standards are only one of several interrelated reform
initiatives that ICE has undertaken. For instance, ICE has made
substantial progress in improving medical care available to
detainees. The ICE Health Service Corps has streamlined the
system for authorizing care to ensure timely treatment for
detainees who have serious medical needs. And ICE is also
developing an electronic health records system.
ICE has also deployed field medical coordinators at all
field offices to provide for better coordination with detention
facilities and to monitor serious medical cases across the
country.
In 2009, ICE created an Office of Detention Oversight to
conduct targeted inspections of detention facilities. ICE has
also located more than 40 new Federal monitors at large
detention facilities to inspect and monitor conditions,
replacing a more expensive contract for those services.
In July 2010, ICE launched an online detainee locater
system, a public web-based tool that allows family members and
attorneys to locate detained aliens in ICE custody. By
providing information online, the tool frees up time for ICE
employees to focus on carrying out other responsibilities.
ICE has made great strides in reducing costly long distance
transfers of detainees by increasing detention capacity where
it is most needed. This makes it more likely that detainees
will remain near their families and attorneys. It also reduces
disruptions to ongoing immigration proceedings that may
lengthen an alien's detention. The ICE transfer directive,
signed by Director Morton in January of this year, ensures that
decisions regarding the long distance transfer of detainees
will be made only after careful consideration of the individual
circumstances of each detainee. The policy will further
decrease the transfer of detainees who have local attorneys,
family members, or ongoing removal proceedings.
As part of our continued effort to develop a better model
for immigration detention, ICE has opened the Karnes County
Civil Detention Center outside of San Antonio. The facility
will house low risk detainees, many of them asylum seekers, in
a less restrictive environment. The facility's design permits
greater freedom of movement, including easy access to outside
recreation, and has other features consistent with our
detention of foreign principles. Karnes also costs ICE far less
than the agency's average cost of detention. ICE plans to open
additional new civil detention facilities in regions where they
are most needed.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and
for your continued support of ICE and its law enforcement
mission. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Landy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Landy.
And now recognize Ms. Vaughan for her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF JESSICA M. VAUGHAN, POLICY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Ms. Vaughan. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
today.
Of course no one wants to see people mistreated in
detention, but this initiative goes too far and is a waste of
taxpayer dollars that is motivated not by a genuine need for
reform, but as part of a larger strategy to trivialize
immigration law enforcement, and minimize the consequences of
illegal immigration, which imposes enormous fiscal, economic,
national security, and public safety burdens on American
communities.
It is just wrong to ask Americans to foot the bill for the
Obama Administration programs that seek to help illegal aliens
game the system. For example, as part of this detention reform
initiative, DHS has set up hotlines and special advocates for
illegal aliens to complain about their treatment. As in any
large detention system, abuses occur and are dealt with, but at
this point, the people who really need a hotline and a special
advocate are the ones who have been the victims of the illegal
acts committed by illegal aliens.
While critics of immigration law enforcement like to call
them concentration camps, in reality immigration detention
centers have always been softer than other detention centers.
With their turf soccer fields, juice bars, satellite
television, and polo shirt clad resident advisors, the
descriptions of the brand new facility in Karnes City, Texas
sound like more a college campus, not like a temporary holding
place for people who have violated U.S. laws.
Now, I am not here to suggest that DHS start housing
detainees in tents in the desert, but the new Karnes facility
cost $32 million to build. That is more than twice as expensive
per bed as another new facility that was built not too long ago
in Farmville, Virginia. It is reasonable to ask why the new
facility, built according to the new standards, cost so much
more, and how this compares to other options, such as housing
detainees at local correction centers.
How can DHS justify these facilities and services
considering that the vast majority of detainees are there only
for a short period of time? The average length of stay for a
so-called non-criminal of Mexico or Central America is 10 to 21
days, just long enough for travel documents to be issued and
flights to be arranged. And a large share of these ICE
detainees, Mexicans who are apprehended by the Border Patrol,
stay only 12 hours.
ICE turns over groups of 100 of these illegal aliens twice
a day. The only reason that they are in detention at all is for
the purpose of padding ICE's year end removal statistics.
For others, mainly in the interior, the centers are really
just a brief way station in the Obama Administration's massive
catch and release program. Under current policies, also known
as prosecutorial discretion, if they are not a mandatory
detainee and have not yet been convicted of a crime, they are
whisked back onto the street, often with a work permit.
Many of the small number who remain for long periods are
there because they are refusing the option of quick return and
choosing to challenge their deportation or seek relief.
Unfortunately, too often they are given false hope by advocacy
groups who, under the new standards, get increased access to
detainees. The humane thing to do is to process them more
expeditiously so that they can get back home.
An increasing number who choose to stay in detention in the
hopes of getting permission to stay are illegal arrivals who
are taking advantage of the Administration's new lenient
policies that reward people who express fear of return to their
home country. They are usually assisted in this claim by NGO
advocates who put on regular briefings in detention centers as
called for in the new standards.
After the application process, they are released with a
work permit and notice to appear at some future date. These
applications have increased 500 percent since the new policies
were adopted.
Advocates for illegal aliens are quick to point out that a
large share of the individuals in detention are classified as
non-criminals. This is not because they are harmless; it is
usually because local authorities often will drop charges
against illegal aliens in the expectation that ICE will take
care of their problem by detaining and removing them. So, this
population of so-called non-criminals in reality includes any
number of unsavory and dangerous characters.
Convicted or not, ICE still has the responsibility to
remove them. Putting them in a center with standards that are
too soft may put detention officers, resident advisors, and
other detainees at risk, and releasing them back into our
communities puts everyone at risk.
The majority of aliens who are not detained while in
proceedings will fail to appear for their hearings or will
ignore orders to depart. And the number of absconders is now
more than 700,000, which is a 28 percent increase over 2008. A
huge number of them abscond from local criminal proceedings,
too.
One recent case illustrates what happens when ICE looks for
ways to release rather than detain people who have been
arrested. Last September, they released a man in Chicago who
was charged with 42 counts of child molestation, including
incest and rape. He was supposedly being monitored
electronically, but like many thousands before him, he has not
been seen since. There are thousands of other cases that we can
point to that are similar to this, but for now since my time
has expired, I will await your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. King. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan.
I would recognize Mr. Crane.
TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CRANE, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL ICE COUNCIL
Mr. Crane. Good afternoon, Vice Chairman Gallegly--I am
sorry, Vice Chairman King, and Members of the Committee.
Executive Order 13522 in part states, ``Federal employees
and their union representatives are an essential source of
front line ideas and information.'' It goes on to say that
union involvement services improve the productivity and
effectiveness of the Federal Government, and that management
should discuss workplace changes, challenges, and problems with
labor, and endeavor to develop solutions jointly. The order was
signed by President Obama on December 9th, 2009.
Ironically, the very next day, December 10th, 2009, I gave
testimony regarding ICE's proposed detention reforms and
detention privatization, stating emphatically that as a union
and as Federal law enforcement officers, we should be involved
in the pre-decisional development of ICE detention standards,
emphasizing the President's point that front line employees
have valuable knowledge and experience that can make our
government function more effectively.
Appropriate 2 and a half years after my 2009 testimony,
ICE's new detention standards were implemented. There was never
any union involvement. DHS and ICE excluded its own officers.
Safety concerns are at the top of our list, safety for both
officers and detainees. At ICE, some detention facilities now
prohibit officers from carrying handcuffs. Some facilities
prohibit officers from wearing uniforms, allegedly because
detainees find uniforms offensive. Detainees wear street
clothes and are free to wander throughout the facility, and
even enter officer work spaces.
Last night, an officer working in a low security facility
reported that all officers and guards at his facility, inside
and outside, are unarmed. There are no armed personnel at all
providing security at the detention facility. He stated that
there are no fire detectors inside detainee housing units
leading the facility failing two fire inspections. Yet ICE
headquarters directed that detainees be housed in the facility
anyway, a dangerous gamble at best.
Approximately 1 year ago, ICE leadership divulged the
assaults against officers and escape attempts were up
significantly, doubling numbers from the previous year. While
data supporting these claims is not available to the union, we
had already observed an apparent increase in the number of
assaults and escape attempts.
Efforts by the union to discuss stronger safety precautions
for ICE officers has been met with strong opposition by ICE.
This as the Administration efforts to apprehend the worst of
the worst led to the obvious: detainee populations that are
increasingly more dangerous and criminal in nature.
New ICE detention standards provide no criminal background
screening of visitors, as is standard practice at agencies like
the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Without screenings, ICE will permit
individuals who pose a security threat to enter detention
facilities, threatening the safety of both detainees and
officers.
New ICE detention standards continue to establish pat down
searches as the standard security search of detainees prior to
admission or reentry into an ICE detention facility, not strip
searches, creating an increased risk that weapons, drugs, and
other contraband will enter ICE facilities.
New ICE detention standards also establish prohibitions on
strip searches of detainees following full contact visitation
with members of the public. New ICE detention permit detainees
to observe as officers search detainee housing and work areas,
allowing detainees to monitor and learn officer search
techniques better enabling detainees to conceal dangerous
contraband inside the facilities.
New ICE standards allow for detention officers to perform
medical and mental health screenings of detainees to include
screenings for emergent medical conditions, suicide risk, and
controlled substance dependency. If interpreted correctly, new
standards prevent detainees with serious medical concerns from
seeing qualified medical staff for 36 hours or more, recklessly
assigning important medical duties to officers instead of
medical professionals.
In conclusion, as a union and as Federal law enforcement
officers, we do not oppose public outreach as part of policy
development, but we do point out that such approaches are
unbalanced and ineffective when law enforcement officers who
perform the duties involved are prohibited from providing input
as well. We believe that new detention standards proposed by
ICE are at times unsafe, unsafe for detainees and unsafe for
employees. Good intentions do make for sound security, and do
not create a safe detention setting.
If the Administration is concerned with providing a safe
detention setting for detainees and safe working conditions for
employees, it will begin to work with the union toward
achieving those goals.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Crane.
And I would now recognize Ms. Brane.
TESTIMONY OF MICHELLE BRANE, DIRECTOR, DETENTION AND ASYLUM
PROGRAM, WOMEN'S REFUGEE COMMISSION
Ms. Brane. Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity
to testify about this matter, which profoundly affects the
lives of hundreds of thousands of----
Ms. Lofgren. Could you pull your microphone a little bit
closer so we can hear?
Ms. Brane. The Women's Refugee Commission identified as
GAPS, researches solutions and advocates for change to improve
the lives of crisis affected women and children. For nearly 2
decades, we have visited immigration detention facilities
throughout the United States and spoken to detention center
staff, local service providers, and to detainees about
policies, practices, conditions of detention, and access to
protection.
There is no question that conditions of immigration
detention in the United States have been inadequate, inhumane,
and unsafe. These conditions have been in violation of the U.S.
Constitution and our obligations under international law and
treaties, exposing detainees to harm and leaving the Department
of Homeland Security and its employees vulnerable to
litigation.
The purpose and authority of ICE detention is to hold,
process, and prepare individuals for removal. It is not to
punish or rehabilitate. Despite this distinction, ICE uses a
penal incarceration system. Regardless of whether it is
inconvenient, the agency has a duty to provide basic services
and care to those it detains. Anything less is unlawful.
The detention reforms we are discussing today are a
response to the public outcry and litigation over conditions of
confinement. Abuses and inhumane conditions have been well
documented by NGOs, the media, and government oversight
agencies. The 2009 report by former DHS special advisor, Dr.
Dora Schriro, concluded that significant reforms were
necessary.
The violations led ICE to launch a much needed reform
effort, including the updating of the 2008 standards. Despite
years of development, the 2011 standards are only slightly
better. They do, however, articulate stronger guarantees to
appropriate and necessary medical/mental health and women's
health care, and protections against sexual assault for
immigration detainees.
Let us be clear. These standards for confinement are no
hospitality guide.
In my numerous visits to detention facilities, I have
encountered a litany of shortcomings, abuses, and tragic
consequences. As evidenced by over 120 documented deaths in
immigration custody since 2003, this lack of medical care is
not a frivolous matter to be cast aside as insignificant. The
case of Mr. Boubacar Bah's death, previously articulated by
Representative Lofgren, is a case in point.
The current medical standards for women also fall well
below those in our Federal prison system. Women have been
denied medically necessary treatment and prenatal care that
have resulted in serious consequences, including untreated
cancer and miscarriages. Even basic needs, such as sanitary
napkins, have been inconsistently available.
Sexual assaults occur during intake, during detention, and
even during transport and removal. Frontline recently
highlighted sexual assaults at the Willacy Facility in Texas.
In 2009, a guard forced a woman at the Willacy Detention
Facility into a bathroom and raped her. He threatened to make
things worse for her if she reported the assault. He was not
sentenced until 2 years later when he pled guilty in August of
2011.
The 2011 standards include basic provisions for treatment
that are consistent with, not more generous, than what is
available in the Federal prison system and by law. These
include appropriate guidelines for the provisions of medical
care, including access to prenatal care and gynecological
services, limits on the use of shackles for pregnant women, and
provisions to prevent and respond to sexual assault, including
a requirement that victims be provided emergency and medical
health services.
To imply that these very basic protections are a holiday or
an undue burden on the agency is simply wrong. The new
provisions bring ICE detention standards closer to a minimum
level of compliance with legal obligations of a civil detention
system. They will realign priorities so that people like Mr.
Bah and victims of sexual assault receive basic needed medical
care and protection from abusive practices. They also provide
clear guidelines and protection for agency and facility staff.
Instituting reforms to improve the operation and oversight
of detention operations should be welcomed. Revising existing
detention standards is not only necessary for the safety of
detainees, it is a significant opportunity for ICE to create a
more efficient and effective system of enforcement.
This concludes my testimony, and I am happy to take
questions at this time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brane follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. King. Thank you, Ms. Brane. And I appreciate all your
testimony, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
And I would turn first to a remark or comment that I heard
made by the gentleman from Puerto Rico in his opening remarks,
Mr. Pierluisi, where he said that 110 have died in detention
ICE custody since 2003, I believe the number was. And so, I
would ask Mr. Landy, do you have a sense of--I understand that
there are individual cases here that does assuage anybody's
grief when it is personal, and it is personal to every family.
But from a statistical standpoint, do you have a sense of
whether it is safer or more dangerous to be in ICE detention
than it is in the broader society of America?
Mr. Landy. With respect to detention deaths, first of all,
in 2004, there were 28 deaths in immigration detention. During
so far in this Fiscal Year, there have been 6 detention deaths.
And in the previous Fiscal Year, there were 8.
ICE has been working very hard to improve medical care, to
address the concerns that have been raised thus far.
Mr. King. I understand that, Mr. Landy, and I appreciate
your statements with regard to that. But data wise, my question
was, is it safer to be in ICE detention as compared to in the
broader society of America, or is it more dangerous to be in
ICE detention from a fatality standpoint? And you have about
33,000 people at any snapshot given day incarcerated. So, have
you given any sense to that whether when they go inside your
doors they are safer than they were outside the doors?
Mr. Landy. Safer----
Mr. King. Less likely to die.
Mr. Landy. I myself have not done a statistical analysis.
Mr. King. Okay. Let me help you out then. I just did a
little math here when I heard the statement made from Mr.
Pierluisi, and I thought, what does that mean, 110,000 deaths
since 2003? So, I just did a little math and roughly 9 years,
and you shake this out, it comes down to about 1 out of every
2,500 people. And if you figure the 33,000 annual, about 1 out
of every 2,500 would die in ICE custody. That is the data that
Mr. Pierluisi gave us if you are accepting the 33,000 number.
If you look at the broader society of America, about 2.4
million people die in America every year out of a 313 million
population. So, that would be .767 percent, which happens to be
1 out of every 28 and a half--1 out of every 128.5 people
statistically die in America.
So, just think of a town of 128 people. Likely 1 of them
will pass away in a given year. So, that means that it is 20
times safer statistically to be in your ICE facility, and I
would just point that out because not that there are not any
problems. I would not take that position. But statistically,
110 deaths over that period of time is not alarming to me.
Mr. Landy. May I respond to that, Vice-Chairman?
Mr. King. Please.
Mr. Landy. In the general public, typically people who pass
away do so at an advanced age. Our population on average is
much younger. There are people who, in our general public,
would be considered healthy, young adult males at that age
primarily. We do not have very many elderly people in our
custody.
Mr. King. Okay. Thank you for that analysis, Mr. Landy, and
I would just suggest, though, that you take a look then, and it
is going to be a question I will ask you on the record today,
and we want to follow up with a response to it. I will ask you
do a statistical analysis of the universe that you have
described in the broader society versus that of the ICE
facilities, and I think that would be instructive for this
panel to know, because it has been part of the discussion that
has taken place.
And then I would turn to--thank you. And I would turn to
Mr. Crane and ask you if you would have any comments you would
like to make after you have heard the testimony from Ms. Brane.
Mr. Crane. A lot of things run things went through my mind
during the testimony today regarding the deaths. And I think
the first thing that I would say is that the people that made
these happen were bad players. And no number of rules or
regulations that we make will get rid of bad players. They are
going to do bad things if they are not supervised 100 percent
of the time. And I think that is one of our biggest issues with
the performance-based detention standards is that we really
feel that they have kind of been off the mark starting in 2009.
We said that the agency needed more oversight. We did not
necessarily need more regulations per se and more rules.
You know, providing people with opportunities to have more
rec time during the day is not going to overcome this type of
issue. But also, as law enforcement officers, well, at ICE
specifically, first of all, we know that many of these
facilities are local jails.
Mr. King. Is it true that some of the inmates control the
keys to their own cells?
Mr. Crane. I am not aware of that.
Mr. King. Okay, thank you. And I would just quickly turn to
Ms. Vaughan then and ask you to flush out your comment that ICE
looks for ways to release rather than to detain.
Ms. Vaughan. Well, the policies now in place, the
guidelines for ICE agents, ICE removal officers in particular,
is to hold only those as a priority who have been convicted of
a crime. And that policy overlooks the reality of our how our
criminal justice system plays out in that many of these
individuals are not going to be convicted unless they are held
because they stand a chance of fleeing before their proceedings
can occur, both their criminal proceedings and also their
immigration proceedings. So, that is why that policy puts the
rest of us at risk when people who are released back into the
community have the opportunity to go on to commit other crimes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan.
The Chair would turn and recognize the gentlelady from
California, Ranking Member Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Before asking my questions, I would like to
ask unanimous consent to include in the record the following
statements: a statement from Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-
Allard; a statement from a Member of the full Committee,
Congressman Jared Polis; a statement from Dora Schriro, the
commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections and
the former special advisor to Secretary Napolitano; a statement
from the American Civil Liberties Union; from the Advocates for
Human Rights; from the American Immigration Lawyers
Association; from the National Immigration Forum; from Human
Rights Watch; from Human Rights First; from the Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service; from the National Latino
Evangelical Coalition; the National Immigrant Justice Center;
and Susanna Barciela, the Policy Director for Americans for
Immigrant Justice.
Mr. King. Hearing no objections, so ordered.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The information referred to is available in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, there have been a lot of statements made, and we
only have 5 minutes, so it is not possible to spend all the
time necessary to correct various things that were said that
were incorrect. But I do think it is important to take a look
at the facility that has been described as kind of a country
club, I guess.
We have a couple of pictures, because I think pictures are
worth more than a few words. This is, to me, again, there are
bunks. It does not look my idea of a plush holiday locale. I
mean, this is the new center that has been built. And by the
way, several Members have said that this was a $30 million
building at taxpayers' expense. It was actually $32 million,
but it was not built at taxpayers' expense. It was built by Geo
Group, a private for-profit prison company, and they are paid
per bed about half of what we pay for other facilities.
If we could show the next picture. This is the plush
recreation yard. You can see the very large fence in back, a
rather grim recreation area. It is not where really I would
plan to spend my holiday. It is not what I would consider a
holiday on ice. And the third and final picture, this is the
showers, as you can see. No curtains. Not exactly what I would
consider a plush environment.
You know, I think it is very easy to pick on the most
vulnerable people, and I think that is some of what is going on
here today. You know, I heard Ms. Vaughan say that these
standards, these new detention standards, just go too far. I
think that was the exact words she said. And I am just sort of
wondering, you know, Ms. Vaughan, you have studied this. Is it
too far to not shackle women as they give birth? Do you think
that is something that really protects the American people? Or
if you have a mental illness, would it go too far to say, do
not put that person in segregation because we have seen that
some of those mentally ill people if they are segregated
without any care, they have committed suicide while in custody?
Or how about this: the guidelines prohibit the male guards from
strip searching the female detainees. Do you think that really
goes too far to say that the male ICE officers should not strip
search the women detainees?
Or how about this: Frontline did a big expose of sexual
assault in the ICE system. And one of the things they pointed
out was that--and I am not saying this is all ICE officers, Mr.
Crane, but certainly there have been multiple instances where
officers, some employees of the Federal Government, some by
contract, have taken a detainee by themselves and then
assaulted them. And now under these guidelines, if you are an
ICE officer or a contract officer, you cannot take for a ride
the female detainees, and take her and rape her or abuse her.
Do you think those things really go too far?
Ms. Brane. Well, we really think that those are all
obviously the very minimum of what one would expect in a civil
detention facility. As I have said, the objective and the
authority of ICE is not to detain punitively; it is to detain
pending processing a hearing and removal. And in that context,
ICE absolutely has a duty to protect and provide minimum care
to the people in their custody.
The new standards, I think, provide really minimum basic
protections and provisions for preventing some of the horror
stories we heard today. Of course I think that Mr. Crane is
absolutely right, that oversight in implementation of these
standards is critical. We have seen that they have not
necessarily implemented them.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask Mr. Landy, and maybe it is not fair
to ask you because we asked the Secretary of the Department,
and she has not really given us a definitive answer. But we had
a bipartisan effort here in the Congress to do something called
the Rape Prevention Act. And it was Congress Wolf from Virginia
and Congressman Scott from Virginia came together and a whole
series of procedures to prevent rape of people that are in our
custody. Many of us believe that that bipartisan law should
also be applied to the immigration detention that is now the
law in the Bureau of Prisons.
Would you not think it would be a good idea to be against
rape in these detention facilities and to adopt some of those
standards mandatorily?
Mr. Landy. Director Morton has recently testified there is
no daylight between PREA and where we want to be as an agency.
The Prison Rape Elimination Act establishes general principles
to try to prevent sexual assault entirely, and, if it should
occur, to respond appropriately and to investigate thoroughly.
That is exactly what this agency does.
We promulgated in our 2011 standards far stronger
protections, although the 2008 standards did that as well. We
intend to aggressively follow up on any allegation of sexual
assault, as well as prevent it, to the maximum extent possible.
Ms. Lofgren. I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. King. I thank the gentlelady, and I recognize the
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Landy, what percentage of aliens are released on bond?
Mr. Landy. We can get back to you on that.
Mr. Gowdy. Just give me a round number. I am not going to
hold you to it. Just generally.
Mr. Landy. I cannot give you that number, but I will say
that anyone convicted of a serious crime is required by law to
be detained. So, anyone who is released on bond----
Mr. Gowdy. That actually was not my question. My question
is, in the full universe of aliens, what percentage of them are
given bond?
Mr. Landy. We will have to get back to you for an exact
number.
Mr. Gowdy. What kind of flight assessment do you do before
you determine the terms and conditions of the bond?
Mr. Landy. ICE officers do a very careful assessment of the
individual's criminal history and other aspects of that
person's background.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, if it is that careful, can you tell me the
percentage who actually abscond or fail to appear?
Mr. Landy. We will have to get back to you on that precise
number. I should say that is not----
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I see the number 40 percent in my
paperwork. Would you disagree with that number, that 40 percent
of aliens who are issued bonds abscond or fail to appear?
Mr. Landy. I do not know that that is correct. And, in
fact----
Mr. Gowdy. If it were 40 percent, would you agree that you
probably ought to rework your flight assessments or retrain the
people who are actually deciding whether or not grant bond?
Mr. Landy. I should emphasize that my office does not work
on these operational issues as to how people who are reviewed
are released on bond. But I will say that----
Mr. Gowdy. Well, that is fine. You are the most
knowledgeable person I can ask today about that.
Mr. Landy. Which is why I will tell you that ICE officers,
pursuant to the agency's policy, very carefully consider all
relevant factors, and only would release someone who is not
convicted of a serious crime, in which case detention is
mandatory by law.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I understand that, but, I mean, there are
other ways to do threat assessments other than--I mean, a prior
conviction for a serious violent offense would be a really good
indicator that that person was a danger to the community. So, I
am not going to give them any credit for detaining people who
have suffered prior serious violent convictions.
Mr. Landy. Our agency's enforcement priorities extend far
beyond that one criteria. First of all----
Mr. Gowdy. Has bond ever been reissued for an alien,
absconded, failed to appear, arrested for the failure to
appear, and then a bond then reissued?
Mr. Landy. The absconding from a final order of removal is
one of the very high priorities that are included in the
agency's initiative. So, if somebody had absconded from a final
order of removal, it would be highly likely that that detention
would occur in those instances.
Mr. Gowdy. And the detention would be indefinite, right?
Mr. Landy. Excuse me?
Mr. Gowdy. Would the detention be indefinite?
Mr. Landy. Detention would be until that person's removal
could be effectuated.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, what if they come from a country that will
not have them back?
Mr. Landy. Under Supreme Court decision, Zadvydas, ICE is
required by law to release people after----
Mr. Gowdy. So, they are right back where we started, right?
Mr. Landy. The agency is required by law to release those
people pursuant to the Supreme Court decision.
Mr. Gowdy. I am familiar with the Supreme Court decision. I
am also familiar that there have been people that have been
held in State jails and prisons for upwards of 2 years awaiting
a trial.
Mr. Landy. Under the Supreme Court decision, people who
cannot be removed or repatriated must be released within 180
days. We must abide by that law.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, let me ask you about repatriation. Would
you support legislation that would restrict visas or cut
financial aid to countries that will not accept their citizens
back?
Mr. Landy. I will have to get back to you on whether the
Administration has a position on that.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, you have a position. I mean, do you not?
Mr. Landy. I am here in my official capacity to testify on
detention policy, and my office does not work on that issue.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I think it is actually the law. I think
the law is in place that there are visa restrictions for
countries that will not accept their citizens back. We just do
not ever enforce it.
Mr. Landy. Well, I cannot speak to that. In fact, I am not
even sure that that is within the agency's mission.
Mr. Gowdy. Did you consult with line ICE agents before
these standards were promulgated?
Mr. Landy. Yes, we did. We provided the draft version of
the performance-based national detention standards to Council
118 leadership in March of 2010.
Mr. Gowdy. Can you give me an example of something they
asked you to include or asked you to take out that you did?
Mr. Landy. Well, when we met with them in April of 2010,
and then again when they were briefed in September of 2010,
they never provided subsequent input as to what sorts of
changes they would like to make, notwithstanding our request
that they let us know our security concerns.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you have any information on ICE agents who
have been injured themselves by detainees?
Mr. Landy. I know that it is exceptionally rare, but I do
not have specific facts.
Mr. Gowdy. What do you mean by exceptionally rare?
Mr. Landy. Well, I personally review on a daily basis
significant incident reports, and I also speak with ICE
officers in the development of our initiatives. And I honestly
do not recall an incident----
Mr. Gowdy. What about false allegations against ICE agents?
Have you encountered any of those, or are those also extremely
rare?
Mr. Landy. Our office would not necessarily know about
false allegations against ICE officers since we are a policy
office that develops detention initiatives in collaboration
with our operational components.
Mr. Gowdy. I see the red light is on, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. King. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, and
recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members.
I have another Committee that is meeting and several other
things going on, but I was so intrigued by this title, I
thought I would come to see what it means. ``Holiday on ICE.''
Ms. Vaughan, do you know what that means?
Ms. Vaughan. It is a reference to a film. I believe it
means that it is a reference to the public perceptions of what
some of the conditions may be in some of these facilities.
Ms. Waters. I am not aware of it. I have not heard this
kind of discussion. Could you describe to me what is meant by
that? What conditions are you talking about?
Ms. Vaughan. Well, I cannot speak to what went into the
naming of the hearing. I have seen some accounts in news media
reports, and I have also visited a facility myself. So, I have
a reasonable sense of what the conditions are.
Ms. Waters. What did you see?
Ms. Vaughan. Pardon me?
Ms. Waters. What did you see when you visited a facility?
Ms. Vaughan. What I saw was a surprisingly relaxed
atmosphere. This was a facility that ICE leased space in from a
county detention center up in the northeast where the detainees
had pretty free access within the facility and access to each
other. They had meals that were brought in by a woman who
cooked them in her home. What I saw, it was a pretty well-
rounded meal of breaded chicken, mixed vegetables, and some
mashed potatoes. They were on a first name basis with the
officers who were in charge of security at the facility. Most
of them actually we were told were requesting to be housed in
that facility rather than being sent to places that were closer
to where their families were, I think because it was smaller
and a little bit different type of setting.
They accepted their detention because they knew that they
were in the country illegally, and they were awaiting their
removal.
Ms. Waters. Yeah, but they had no choice. They had been
detained, is that right?
Ms. Vaughan. Right. Oh, I am sure they would rather not be.
Ms. Waters. They were not there voluntarily.
Ms. Vaughan. No, but they also knew that the reason for
their detention was because they were here in violation of U.S.
law.
Ms. Waters. Well, but I want to talk about the ``Holiday on
Ice'' and the conditions that this title refers to. And so, you
had people who were relaxed. That means they were not
screaming, or crying, or running around, or fighting, or
anything, but they were just ordinarily calm people who
happened to be detained. Is that correct?
Ms. Vaughan. Well, most of them were in there for drug
violations.
Ms. Waters. Could you describe to me what you think would
be wrong with being relaxed and a little bit sane? Is something
wrong with that?
Ms. Vaughan. No, though this is a number of years before
the new standards were put into place.
Ms. Waters. They had access to each other. What do you
mean, families, that the mother, the father, children could
talk to each other?
Ms. Vaughan. Well, they were able to have visitors. They
seemed to appreciate our visit because the purpose of it was to
get a sense of what the conditions were for them in detention.
Ms. Waters. So, did you on your visit, did you determine
that the conditions were luxurious and extravagant and a
``Holiday on Ice,'' or just kind of an ordinary thing with some
woman who cooked some food and brought it in? It was not
catered by a restaurant. What was extraordinary or extravagant
about these conditions?
Ms. Vaughan. I was surprised actually that it was as
relaxed as it was considering that the local officers may not
have had good information about who these people were or what
all was in their background because this was before the era of
secure communities and biometrics-based background checks. So,
I remember thinking that they were potentially at risk because
it was so relaxed.
Ms. Waters. But they did not demonstrate that they were
violent, or they were about to attack anybody, or that they
were fighting. They did not demonstrate any of that.
Ms. Vaughan. Not during our visit.
Ms. Waters. You just thought that maybe they should have
because they had records of some kind, and you were just
surprised that they were not violent, or fighting, or that kind
of thing.
But I guess the bottom line is you did not observe
extravagance, did you?
Ms. Vaughan. I would not call it extravagance, no. It was
more kind of Mayberry-ish like atmosphere.
Ms. Waters. So, you think that is too nice for a detainee.
Ms. Vaughan. I would have left that up to the people who
are in charge of running that facility. It seemed a little bit
relaxed to me knowing what can happen.
Ms. Waters. I know. You keep talking about it being
relaxed, and I am not so sure what you are referring to. And
what I am trying to find out is what this Holiday on ICE is
because it implies that there is some kind of extravagance, and
people want to be there. They are having a great time. They are
having a vacation. But having just talked with you, I do not
think that is the case.
Let me ask Mr. Landy, if I may----
Mr. King. And as the gentlelady's time has expired, we will
allow that last question.
Ms. Waters. Oh, thank you very much.
I think everyone is interested in these facilities being
safe and humane. Is that the mission? Is that the goal? You
have to have these detainees until something happens. They are
either deported or something happens. And are you trying to do
anything more than safety and humaneness?
Mr. Landy. It is essential that the detention facilities
that we use be safe and humane, especially recognizing the fact
that our population and the authority that we have is a civil
detention authority, that we do not have the authority to
punish people.
Also the fact that there are non-criminals in our
detention, that there are asylum seekers in our detention, and
given the variety and diversity of our population, we do need
to make sure that our policies and standards are appropriate
for our population.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. King. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady from
California. I thank the witnesses, Mr. Landy, Ms. Vaughan, Mr.
Crane, and Ms. Brane, for your testimony.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. King. And without objection--yes, I would yield.
Ms. Lofgren. Could I ask unanimous consent to place in the
record also the pictures that we displayed of the new facility?
Mr. King. Hearing no objection, so ordered.**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**The information referred to is available in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. King. Again, I thank the witnesses for your testimony
today. And without objection, all Members will have 5
legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written
questions for the witnesses, which we will forward to ask the
witnesses to respond as promptly as they can so that their
answers may be made part of the record.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record.
And with that, again, I thank the witnesses. And this
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Immigration Policy and Enforcement
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
__________
Karnes City, Texas Detention Center
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Francisco Casteneda, testifying before the House Committee on the
Judiciary, four months prior to his death.
__________
Bruises on Hiu Lui Ng's body photographed at the hospital
prior to his death.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Boubacar Bah calling for help while being restrained in detention.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Family visits Boubacar Bah in the hospital before his death.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Boubacar Bah in the hospital before his death.
__________
Government Chart Documenting Cost Savings Achieved Through Denials of
Requests for Medical Attention.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]