Arizona Detention Dialogue – Key Takeaways

By Ruthie Epstein

When it comes to Arizona and immigration, the nation’s attention is focused on the fallout of the controversial SB 1070 law and harsh law enforcement practices on the border and in counties like Maricopa and Pinal. Immigration detention – what happens after an immigrant is taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – receives less attention. Yet ICE holds in detention thousands of immigrants each year in Arizona, with 2,600 beds in the state, including 700 in jails. Almost 16,000 county inmates are held in Arizona jails daily, in addition to the almost 40,000 in the state’s prison system. Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities in Arizona account for an additional 5,100 inmates.

On October 12, Human Rights First held one of our Dialogues on Detention at Arizona State University’s (ASU) Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law in Tempe. We heard from immigration detention and criminal justice experts who confirmed that ICE detainees continue to be held in inappropriate conditions and offered up recommendations for reform, including community-based release, normalized conditions of confinement, and an end to mandatory detention. They also described the dire need for expanded legal information and legal representation for detained immigrants in Arizona. The great lineup of Arizona-based experts, plus two fantastic visitors from NYC and Missouri, is here.

Highlights and takeaways:

• The immigration detention and criminal justice systems are different.
  
  In her keynote remarks, Dr. Dora Schriro, Commissioner of Correction in New York City and former director of the corrections departments in Arizona and Missouri, noted four fundamental distinctions: 1. Mandatory detention provisions in the immigration law require ICE to detain large categories of immigrants rather than making sound individualized judgments as to whether detention makes sense; 2. Immigrants detained by ICE don’t receive Miranda warnings – because they are detained under civil rather than criminal law, the due process requirements are different; 3. ICE interprets the law to mandate a daily detained population of 33,400; corrections systems don’t have target population levels; 4. The populations held in the two systems are different.Nevertheless, said Dr. Schriro, who served as special advisor to U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in 2009 and issued a report on the immigration detention system, “With few exceptions, ICE facilities were originally build as jails and prisons and continue to operate true to their original mission.”
• Hey, Congress! Alternatives to detention save taxpayer dollars.
  
  Noel Fidel, former judge at the Maricopa County Superior Court and the Arizona Court of Appeals, former Merriam Distinguished Visiting Professor at ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, called on Congress to recognize the tremendous cost savings offered by alternatives to detention. Immigration detention costs taxpayers an average of $164 per day per detainee. Alternatives cost 30 cents to $14 per day per detainee.
• On compliance, the basics do the trick.
  
  Marco Galvino, who was detained for 7.5 years while his immigration case was pending, attested that if individuals in removal proceedings have the basics in place – food, clothing, housing, legal assistance – they will show up for their hearings. Mr. Galvino now works with Restoration Project, a community-based release program at Casa Mariposa, in Tucson, which helps provide these necessities to formerly detained individuals who lack other resources.
• Normalized conditions make for safer facilities.Dodie Ledbetter, Deputy Court Administrator and former Detention Director for the Pima County Juvenile Court Center, reported that Pima County has taken steps to normalize conditions in its juvenile detention facilities per recommendations from the . Changes including increased natural light, an end to the use of uniforms and institutional furniture, increased freedom of movement with camera monitors, and expanded programming have reduced violence in the facility and led to positive relationships between the kids and the staff. Gregory Cook, senior associate/designer in the Justice Group at the , reported that his clients – including corrections departments in Arkansas and Tennessee, plus a maximum-security prison in Iowa – are asking for more normalized conditions, which allow for calmer, safer facilities.