U.S. Citizen Children Impacted By Immigration Enforcement

In the United States today, more than eight million citizens live with at least one family member, often a parent, who is undocumented. Children make up the majority of these U.S. citizens; almost six million citizen children under the age of 18 live with a parent or family member who is undocumented. Consequently, immigration enforcement actions—and the ongoing threats associated with them—have significant physical, emotional, developmental, and economic repercussions on the children left behind. Deportations of parents and family members have serious consequences that affect children and extend to communities and the country as a whole.

This fact sheet provides an overview of the U.S. citizen children who could be impacted by immigration enforcement actions, the challenges and risk factors that these children face, and the existing mechanisms designed to protect children if a parent is detained or deported. 


Millions of U.S. citizen children have undocumented parents and family members. 

• 4.1 million U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 live with at least one undocumented parent according to the most recent estimates available (analyzing 2009-2013 U.S. Census data).
• 5.9 million U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 live with an undocumented family member, according to the most recent estimates available (analyzing 2010-2014 census data).
• Roughly half-a-million U.S. citizen children experienced the apprehension, detention, and deportation of at least one parent in the course of about two years, according to the most recent estimates available (analyzing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data between 2011 and 2013).
• As of 2017, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti had an estimated 273,000 U.S.-born citizen children. With those TPS designations terminated, many of these parents will become undocumented by the end of 2019.

Immigration enforcement—and the threat of such actions—can negatively impact a child’s long-term health and development. 

• A child’s risk of having mental health problems like depression, anxiety, and severe psychological distress increases following the detention and/or deportation of a parent. Since late 2016, doctors and service providers have reported anecdotally that they have seen more children exhibiting stress- and anxiety-related behavioral changes, including symptoms of “toxic-stress,” due to fear that a family member will be deported.
• A study of Latino citizen children from 2013-2015 found that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms were significantly higher for children who had at least one detained or deported parent.
• A 2010 study of immigration-related parental arrests (at home or worksites) found that the majority of children experienced at least four adverse behavioral changes in the six months following a raid or arrest. Compared to the previous six months, children cried or were afraid more often; changed their eating or sleeping habits; and/or were more anxious, withdrawn, clingy, angry, or aggressive.
• Even before birth, immigration enforcement can put a child’s health at risk. The 2008 worksite raid in Postville, Iowa—the largest single-site immigration raid in U.S. history—was tied to premature and underweight births, complications that put babies at risk for infant death or long-term health problems. Researchers found that babies born to Latina mothers in Iowa within 37 weeks of the raid were 24 percent more likely to be underweight compared to the previous year. This increased risk was not evident in babies born to non-Latina white mothers in Iowa.

The detention or deportation of a parent puts children at risk of economic instability. 

The deportation, and even the arrest or detention, of a parent or other household family member has significant short- and long-term financial implications. U.S. citizen children and any remaining family members can face substantial economic disadvantages following the removal of a primary provider. 

• An analysis of 2014 median family income estimated that a family’s income would decrease 50 percent following the deportation of a family member.
• A study of immigration enforcement in six U.S. locations between 2006 and 2009 found that families lost 40 to 90 percent of their income, or an average of 70 percent, within six months of a parent’s immigration-related arrest, detention, or deportation.
• The ability to afford housing may become more tenuous following the deportation of a provider, resulting in the loss of a family’s home and more frequent relocations.
• A 2016 study of immigration enforcement and housing foreclosures found that “deportations exacerbate rates of foreclosure among Latinos by removing income earners from owner-occupied households.” Furthermore, the research revealed that counties with 287(g) agreements, which authorize immigration enforcement collaboration between local police and ICE, had substantially higher foreclosure rates among Latinos.

U.S. citizen children may end up in the child welfare system following the detention or deportation of their parent. 

Parents—regardless of immigration status, detention, or deportation—have a constitutional right to custody of their children (unless deemed unfit). While the child welfare system generally recognizes that it is in a child’s best interest to remain with a parent or family member, the intersection with immigration enforcement can negatively impact parental rights and thus a child’s well-being. For example, the lack of coordination between agencies has historically led to prolonged family separation and even termination of parental rights. 

To ensure that enforcement activities did not “unnecessarily disrupt the parental rights” of parents or legal guardians of minor children, ICE issued its Parental Interests Directive in 2013. The Parental Interests Directive was replaced in 2017 with a new Detained Parents Directive. The 2017 policy eliminated many aspects of the 2013 directive, including guidance for the use of prosecutorial discretion in cases involving children and all references to parental rights. The 2017 directive instead instructs ICE agents to “remain cognizant of the impact enforcement actions may have” on certain children.

• According to ICE’s 2017 Detained Parents Directive, when certain minor children are encountered during immigration enforcement, ICE agents should “generally accommodate” the parent or legal guardian’s efforts to make child care arrangements before contacting local child welfare or law enforcement to take temporary custody.
• If a parent is unable to arrange childcare or custody prior to detention or deportation, the child may be taken by the state’s Child Protective Services (CPS) for placement and case management. The child is usually placed in an emergency shelter; group home; or with a relative, friend, or stranger in a foster home while custody is determined in family court.
• An estimated 5,000 U.S. citizen children in foster care had a detained or deported parent in 2011, according to a national study.
• Children in foster care in counties with 287(g) agreements were 29 percent more likely to have detained or deported parents compared to non-287(g) counties studied in 2011.

There are limited mechanisms to safeguard parental rights, which are incredibly difficult for parents to regain following detention or deportation. 

All parents have the right to receive a notification of custody proceedings affecting their children, attend such proceedings, and receive copies of related court documents. Yet there are few enforceable, permanent policies in place to protect these rights.

• Federal law mandates that parental rights be terminated if a child has been out of a parent’s custody for 15 of the past 22 months. Policies and procedures vary by state, but in order to maintain or regain parental rights, CPS generally implements a reunification plan that requires a parent to have regular contact with the child and participate in family court hearings. Detained or deported parents have historically faced significant barriers to these requirements.
• Parents may request release from detention in order to care for their children while they are in immigration proceedings. However, ICE no longer provides its personnel with guidance for exercising such discretion in cases that involve a child.
• The 2017 directive generally instructs agents to facilitate regular visitation for detained parents and their minor children, though no longer emphasizes in-person visitation. ICE personnel should also arrange for a detained parent's participation in custody proceedings when required by a court.

Significant issues persist for detained parents who may be dealing with both immigration and custody proceedings. Since ICE is not required to inform CPS of a parent’s whereabouts, CPS may have difficulty locating and properly notifying a detained parent; family courts and caseworkers may not understand why a parent is detained and unable to participate in proceedings; and ICE officials may underestimate the impact that enforcement has on U.S. citizen children who are likely to be left behind. 


Parents with a final deportation order must make the difficult decision of whether to bring their children—including U.S. citizen children—with them. 

ICE issued more than 200,000 deportation orders between 2010 and 2012 for parents who report having U.S. citizen children, according to the most recent estimates of government data available. While the government does not track whether U.S. citizen children stay in the United States or leave with a deported parent, both scenarios occur and pose challenges.

• If parental rights remain intact, parents with a pending deportation may make custody arrangements for their children to stay in the United States. ICE is supposed to “accommodate, to the extent practicable,” a detained parent's efforts to make guardianship or travel arrangements for the child prior to deportation.
• If a child’s custody is still being determined after a parent has been deported, the ability of the parent to regain custody or participate in proceedings—even if the court requires the parent’s attendance—is extremely limited. ICE no longer has guidance to consider facilitating the travel of a deported parent back to the United States to participate in proceedings that may result in the termination of parental rights.
• Deported parents have the right to reunite with their children outside of the United States as long as the reunification plan is ongoing, but this requires significant coordination between family members, the parent country’s consulate, and U.S. state and federal agencies. It can be difficult for deported parents to prove that they can provide for their children in a stable and safe environment in the country of deportation, based on many of the same conditions that may have triggered the parent’s migration to the United States

Source: www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org  
https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4339-Citizen-Children-Impacted-by-Immigration.html

Information About A Secretive Program That Fast-Tracks Deportations

by Emma Winger 

Since the mid-1980s, immigration courts have operated the Institutional Hearing Program (IHP). The program is designed to quickly deport people serving criminal sentences. Despite how long it’s been in operation, little is known about the IHP. With a lawsuit filed earlier this week, advocates hope to shed light on this inherently secretive, newly-expanded program that raises serious due process concerns. 

Under the program, immigration judges can conduct removal proceedings for certain immigrants serving criminal sentences in federal, state, and local correctional facilities. The purported goal of the program is to deport the immigrants as soon as they complete their sentences. But by focusing on expediency, this secretive program undermines the rights of the people it targets for deportation. 

Historical data shows that only a tiny fraction of people facing fast-tracked deportation through the IHP have an attorney. This lack of legal assistance exacerbates other problems with the IHP. Immigrants with criminal convictions—like all immigrants—are entitled to due process in their deportation proceedings. But determining the immigration consequences of criminal convictions is notoriously complicated. Individuals in the IHP are often required to present complex legal arguments without the help of a lawyer to defend against deportation. 

The IHP operates almost exclusively through a video teleconference (VTC) system. This makes the process even more difficult as the system is often plagued by technical failings. These immigrants never have the chance to see an immigration judge in person. Instead, they are often left to defend themselves without the help of an attorney, via a faulty video system. 

It is unclear how or if the IHP protects the rights of those suffering from mental illness. They are entitled to certain safeguards if an immigration judge determines that they are incompetent. Without lawyers or an in-person appearance before a judge, this population is particularly vulnerable to due process violations. 

Despite these concerns, the Trump administration vowed to expand the IHP “[t]o the maximum extent possible.” The need to understand how this program functions has never been more urgent. 

The American Immigration Council, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the Immigrant Defense Project sued to force the immigration courts to release records and data revealing how the IHP operates, where it operates, and who it targets. Advocates believe this information will bring greater transparency to an expanding, problematic program. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4332-Secretive-Program-That-Fast-Tracks-Deportations.html

ICE Quietly Expands Immigration Detention In The Deep South

By Katie Shepherd www.immigrationimpact.com

While members of Congress were struggling to reach a bipartisan deal in February in order to end the government shutdown, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) quietly expanded its complicated network of immigration jails—this time in the Deep South. 

In late June, ICE started using three jails in Louisiana and Mississippi, with bed-space for 4,000 people. Just two years ago—at the beginning of the Trump presidency—ICE had the capacity to hold only about 2,000 people. This expansion increase’s ICE’s capacity in Louisiana and Mississippi by 50 percent. 

All three of the detention centers are run by private prison companies: Adams County Correctional Center in Mississippi is run by CoreCivic, the Catahoula Correctional Center in Louisiana is run by LaSalle Corrections, and the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center is run by GEO Group. 

Private prison companies are driven by financial incentive and so historically have cut corners in order to maximize profit. As a result, privately run jails are chronically understaffed in order to save money and incarcerated individuals may have more limited access to critical services, including medical care and adequate food. 

This expansion is particularly concerning given the long and horrifying track record of human rights abuses, staff mistreatment, and inadequate medical care in these facilities in recent years. Deplorable conditions at one of the jails—the Adams County prison—contributed to a 2012 riot that left one guard dead and at least a dozen people injured. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in May that it would no longer use Adams County to hold federal inmates, giving ICE—and CoreCivic, which now runs Adams County—the chance to take over. 

In fact, the horrifying conditions in facilities just like these were uncovered by Mother Jones in the summer of 2016, when an investigative reporter went undercover for four months as a guard at a CoreCivic-run jail in Louisiana. 

Ramping up ICE detention in the Deep South is particularly problematic given the remoteness of the facilities, and their distance from available attorneys, expert witnesses, and loved ones. The region is notorious for particularly harsh immigration judges. Many of the hearings are likely to be heard by video teleconference (VTC), which disadvantages immigrants. Attorneys and advocates have complained that video technology often breaks down, and the lines may have bad sound quality. 

Congress must fully exercise its constitutional oversight authority and hold ICE accountable for repeatedly overspending its detention budget. Further, the Trump administration must decrease its over-reliance on private prison companies, which systemically cut corners at the cost of the well-being and health of the individuals in their custody. Until that happens, individuals in facilities like Adams County, Catahoula, and South Louisiana Processing Center will continue to suffer out of sight of attorneys. 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4323-ICE-Expands-Immigration-Detention.html

Certain Detained Asylum Seekers Must Receive a Bond Hearing Within 7 Days

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball 

Attorney General William Barr announced in April 2019 plans to eliminate bond hearings for immigrants who pass an asylum screening interview after entering the United States. This would have forced many people to remain incarcerated for months or years during their asylum proceedings. However, on Tuesday, a federal court recognized that this fundamental attack on due process is unconstitutional. 

A U.S. district court judge found that the government cannot lock up certain detained asylum seekers without giving a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The Seattle judge ordered that those hearings must take place within seven days of requesting one and that immigration courts must provide new legal protections at the hearings. 

This ruling comes after the Attorney General said, in a case called Matter of M-S-, that he would bar immigration courts from deciding whether to release certain asylum seekers held in immigration detention during their often-lengthy asylum proceedings. 

The district court’s recent decision in the Padilla v. ICE case protects these immigrants’ right to a bond hearing. It is set to go into effect on July 16. It applies nationwide to people who enter the United States between ports of entry, are put into a fast-tracked deportation process called expedited removal, and then pass an initial screening interview about their requests for asylum. The government is likely to ask a higher court to overturn the decision. 

In response to Tuesday’s decision, the White House issued a statement. The statement claims that the decision in Padilla would somehow “lead to the further overwhelming of our immigration system” and that amounted to the judge “[imposing] his or her open borders views on the country.” 

Unfortunately, this is merely more of the same from the Trump administration. The White House regularly sends out harmful, anti-immigrant rhetoric with no basis in fact and attacks the courts when judges uphold the Constitution. In reality, Tuesday’s decision simply protects against the Attorney General’s unlawful efforts to upend a half century of standard immigration court procedure by indefinitely and unnecessarily incarcerating asylum seekers. 

No one should be subject to arbitrary imprisonment while seeking asylum. This decision could protect many immigrants who would otherwise spend months or years locked up by the Department of Homeland Security simply because they are seeking protection in the United States.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4294-Asylum-Seekers-Must-Receive-a-Bond-Hearing-Within-7-Days.html

Certain Detained Asylum Seekers Must Receive a Bond Hearing Within 7 Days, Judge Orders

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball

Asylum seekers are often imprisoned in immigration detention for weeks or months before they can ask a judge to release them, even though they’re entitled to bond hearings. But this injustice may soon be corrected for some asylum seekers. 

On Friday, a U.S. district court judge ruled that certain detained asylum seekers must receive a bond hearing within seven days of requesting one. The Seattle judge also ordered that immigration courts must provide legal protections at the hearings. 

The ruling in the Padilla v. ICE case is a defeat for the Trump administration. It strikes a blow against the ongoing campaign to punish and deter migrants from seeking asylum. 

Judge Marsha J. Peckman ordered the immigration courts to: 

• Provide certain detained asylum seekers with a bond hearing within 7 days of requesting one.
• Put the burden of proof on the Department of Homeland Security—not the asylum seekers—to justify continued detention.
• Record or provide a transcript of the hearings.
• Issue a written decision that explains why an immigration judge decides to grant or deny bond at the time the decision is made.

The case is a nationwide class action brought by detained asylum seekers. The decision, which grants their motion for a preliminary injunction, applies to all detained asylum seekers who entered the United States between ports of entry and then passed an initial screening on their asylum claims called a credible fear interview. The American Immigration Council and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project represent the asylum seekers. 

This order could drastically change the situation of thousands of detained asylum seekers. Many would no longer need to wait for weeks or months to get a bond hearing. 

The order would also put in place important legal protections. Currently, even once they receive bond hearings, asylum seekers are at a disadvantage. They are often unable to gather evidence or obtain legal representation to help with their bond requests while behind bars. Yet, the courts still require they bear the burden of proof to show why they should be released. 

Under this system, asylum seekers also are often left in the dark about why their bond requests are denied. Bond hearings are not generally recorded. Judges also don’t have to explain in writing why they denied bond until after an immigrant has already appealed the decision. This creates serious problem for asylum seekers trying to appeal bond denials. 

These unfair practices leave many immigrants incarcerated during the entire, lengthy asylum process. Immigrants forced to stay in detention are less likely to succeed in their asylum cases. Some may even give up valid claims to remain in the United States to get out of unsafe detention conditions . 

The ruling is set to take effect within 30 days. However, the government could appeal the decision to a higher court or take other steps to prevent it from going into effect in those 30 days. 

This decision is still a first step towards ensuring asylum seekers have access to prompt, fair bond hearings.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4103-Asylum-Seekers-Must-Receive-a-Bond-Hearing-Within-7-Days.html

Making Sense of the Rising Number of Families Arriving at the Border

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Over the past few months, a new trend has emerged at the U.S.-Mexico border: more families are crossing and presenting themselves to U.S. officials to ask for asylum. But even though the number of people crossing the border are still at historically low levels, the Trump administration alleges it is overwhelmed by the arrival of families. These changes in migration patterns have exposed Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) inability to respond in a humane and effective way. 

In February 2019, the Border Patrol apprehended 66,450 individuals after crossing the border. This number represented the largest number of arrests at the border in years. However, it was only 5,000 higher than a similar spike in overall arrivals in spring 2014. During that last spike, only 38 percent of people arriving at the border were families and unaccompanied children. Last month, that percent rose to nearly 65 percent—42,999 in total. 

This is the largest number of families apprehended at the border in one month since the government began keeping records in 2012. 

CBP border stations were originally created to receive, hold, and process single Mexican adults who were more quickly returned to their home country. In the past, many families were detained in these stations for days at a time, where they suffered freezing temperatures, lack of hygiene, and inadequate medical care. Many would then be transferred to family detention centers, where they were locked up with their children for weeks or months. 

But now that more than half of all border crossers are asylum-seeking families, in recent weeks the government has started to release families along the border, citing a lack of capacity. 

Government officials are not legally required to detain asylum-seeking families. Officials have always had the discretion to release or parole into the country those who come to the border with instructions to appear at an immigration court for a removal hearing at a later date. Yet CBP has presented its inability to hold everyone in detention as a crisis. 

Days after President Trump took office, he issued an executive order which required CBP to reduce the use of humanitarian parole. Following this executive order, CBP increased the use of detention at the border even for individuals who were not flight risks, partly to deter other families from coming. This inhumane practice caused concrete harm to those forced to remain in immigration custody for long periods of time. 

Although the agency claims to be overwhelmed, it has had to deal with large numbers of children and families in the past, including in 2014 and 2016. Instead of coming up with solutions to care for children its custody, CBP doubled down on detention and deterrence. By shifting to more readily releasing families now, the government is recognizing that it can’t detain its way out of the current situation and that release is a viable option. 

Most of the recently released families will end up appearing in immigration court and seeking protection, as is their right. By avoiding the use of detention, CBP is saving taxpayer money and choosing not to subject asylum seekers to harmful detention which deprives them of access to counsel and limits their ability to obtain relief. 

The rise in family apprehensions masks the reality that the border is more secure than ever. With Central Americans making up more than 90 percent of individuals apprehended crossing the border, the days of large numbers of Mexican immigrants coming across the border for work is almost gone. New studies show that with improving economic conditions and a resurgence in national pride, few Mexicans are interested in traveling to the United States.

Faced with these new migration patterns, the Trump administration must recognize that rising border apprehensions do not present the same challenges as in the past. To address the changes, the administration should invest in better infrastructure, including ensuring that families and children are not subjected to deplorable conditions while in CBP custody. 

Fuente: www.immigrationimpact.com/

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4086-Rising-Number-of-Families-Arriving-at-the-Border.html

Immigrants Are Regularly Kept Locked Up For Months After Deportation Orders

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball

When the U.S. government orders that an immigrant in its custody must be deported, the person isn’t supposed to remain incarcerated for long. Yet the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) often does not deport people promptly. This means thousands of people suffer in detention for months after they’re ordered deported. 

This is what the DHS’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found in a report earlier this month. 

The federal watchdog looked at the cases of everyone in DHS custody with removal orders on a single day. Immigration law generally requires that DHS deport people within 90 days after a final removal order. But DHS held 3,053—almost a quarter of the people in custody with final removal orders—for longer than that. When OIG checked back in on those people three months later, it found that 1,284 were still detained. 

More than 1,000 immigrants were still locked up more than 6 months after they received their final removal orders. 

Almost 20 years ago, in a case called Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court ruled immigrants with final removal orders can’t be forced to stay in detention for an unlimited period of time. Even if the government can’t physically deport someone from the United States, the person can’t sit in jail indefinitely just because of their removal order. 

If deportation is not foreseeable, it’s usually considered unreasonable to keep a person jailed for more than 6 months after a removal order. There is an exception for people who haven’t been deported because they are challenging a removal order in the courts. Many of the people described in the OIG report were still in detention for this reason. However, others stayed detained for months because DHS or foreign governments delayed getting necessary travel documents or flight arrangements. 

Forty percent of the people detained for at least 90 days after their removal orders were held because of this type of government-created delay. 300 of them were still in DHS custody 3 months after that. 

While the OIG report’s findings are disheartening, they are not surprising. Under the Trump administration, DHS has expanded its capacity to detain immigrants. Currently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detains 48,000 immigrants every day. President Trump has requested funding to increase immigration detention even more. 

 

Regardless of the reason for the prolonged detention, it should not be regular DHS practice to incarcerate immigrants for months after they are ordered removed. Immigration detention is a form of civil detention—meaning it is not a form of punishment for any unlawful conduct. Keeping people locked up because they are exercising their legal rights to challenge their deportation or because of government-created delays is unjust. 

Fuente: www.immigrationimpact.com/

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4080-Immigrants-Are-Kept-Locked-Up-After-Deportation-Orders.html

Surprise Government Inspection Finds Nooses in ICE Detention Center, Doctors Refusing to Treat Immigrant Detainees

Written by Melissa Cruz

When government officials conducted a surprise inspection of the immigration detention center in Adelanto, California this May, they were met by many signs of serious neglect and abuse, including the chilling sight of nooses made from twisted bed sheets hanging in multiple cells.

This abuse and neglect are highlighted in a new report by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and show how Adelanto staff’s blatant disregard of federal detention standards created a dangerous environment for immigrant detainees. 

Those held at the facility include asylum seekers, individuals caught up in raids, and others identified by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as eligible for deportation. Some have just crossed the border while others have been in the United States for decades—though many are detained for years as their cases are decided. 

The OIG report instructs ICE and GEO Group, the private prison company that operates the center and houses the 2,000 ICE detainees, to focus on three particular areas for immediate improvement. 

According to the report, OIG is most concerned about: 


Nooses Hanging in Detainee Cells

During OIG’s inspection, officials found braided bed sheets hanging from vents in 15 out of the 20 cells they visited. Both staff and detainees referred to these bed sheets specifically as “nooses.” 

When asked why they were not removing the nooses, several guards said they were “not a high priority”—despite the seven suicide attempts that occurred at the facility in a 10-month span last year. 

One detainee told the inspectors he had witnessed several people try to commit suicide by tying their bed sheets to the vents. “The guards laugh at them and call them ‘suicide failures’ once they are back from medical,” the detainee said. 


Improperly Segregating Detainees

ICE detainees can be removed from the facility’s general population under certain circumstances, like if they commit a serious rule violation or need medical attention. 

Adelanto staff are required to follow these ICE standards for segregation—yet detainees are often removed from general population for no clear reason in a violation of their rights. 

OIG officials noted that every detainee that was removed during their inspection had been inappropriately placed in segregation. These detainees also had their family visitations revoked and were no longer allowed to purchase toiletries from the commissary, neither of which are listed as an available penalty in ICE’s detention standards. 

In other cases, communication assistance was not available as required. Inspectors noted one such instance during their visit, in which a segregated blind man with limited English proficiency was not given documents he could read in braille or understand. Additionally, OIG officials found that no segregated detainees were provided documents translated into their native languages. 


Failure to Provide Adequate and Timely Medical and Dental Care

OIG officials found that staff physicians, nurses, and mental health providers did not perform their required daily one-on-one evaluations with detainees. The report noted that medical staff would often pass by detainees’ cells, stamp their name on detainees’ records that hang outside of cells, and move on without ever stopping to conduct an evaluation. 

Both internal reviews and detainee testimonials also showed that people waited months to see a doctor for persistent health problems and were not given their prescribed medication. 

Additionally, dentists on-site refused to perform basic dental care. According to the center’s logs, no detainees received cleanings or fillings for four years. Many detainees’ teeth would fall out before their appointments—they were either wait-listed for months at a time or dentists would cancel the appointment without warning. 

Some preventative dental equipment, like floss, is only available through the commissary. When asked what detainees should do while waiting for an appointment, one staff dentist suggest that detainees “could use string from their socks to floss if they were dedicated to dental hygiene.” 

OIG officials recommended ICE conduct a thorough investigation of the detention center to ensure the safety, rights, and health of detainees. ICE said it will comply and has scheduled a contractor to conduct an inspection beginning next week. 

These findings by OIG are disturbing. They show the importance of surprise inspections and the need for congressional oversight of ICE. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3916-Doctors-Refusing-to-Treat-Immigrant-Detainees.html