IMPRISONED JUSTICE:
Inside Two Georgia Immigrant
Detention Centers
May 2017

PHOTO CREDIT: TOP PHOTO: STEVEN RUBIN; BOTTOM PHOTOS: STEVE PAVEY

Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic
Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

1

“SEGREGATION IS LIKE HELL.
IT IS TOTAL ISOLATION.”
-Detained Immigrant at the Stewart Detention Center

“I HAVE BEEN AT THE DETENTION CENTER FOR
EIGHTEEN MONTHS AND I HAVE ASKED FOR NEW
SOCKS, UNDERWEAR, AND BLANKETS, BUT NOT
A SINGLE REQUEST HAS BEEN FULFILLED.”
-Detained Immigrant at the Irwin County Detention Center

“I TRAVELED TO AMERICA FOR ASYLUM, BUT I HAD
NO IDEA I WOULD BE DETAINED. I DIDN’T THINK
THEY WOULD DETAIN ASYLUM-SEEKERS. I JUST
ASKED TO APPLY FOR ASYLUM AND I DIDN’T KNOW
I WOULD BE IMPRISONED. . . BUT, I HAVE NO HOPE
OF ASYLUM NOW THAT I WAS TRANSFERRED TO
STEWART. STEWART IS JUST A DEPORTATION
CENTER. THIS IS NOT A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN
WIN ASYLUM.”
-Detained Immigrant at the Stewart Detention Center

“I AM IN SO MUCH PAIN. I DON’T UNDERSTAND
WHY THEY WILL NOT LET ME LEAVE.”
-Detained Immigrant at the Irwin County Detention Center
PageImprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

		1TABLE OF CONTENTS

	

I.			 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

II.	PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	1 			 a.	 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	1 			 b. Changes in the Number of Georgia Detention Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	1 			 c. Department of Homeland Security Initiatives Still Exist Despite Heavy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			 1 	 1				 Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	1 					 i. The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) Continues to Funnel Noncitizens from
	1 					
the Corrections System into ICE Custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	1 					 ii. §287(g) Continues to Operate in Georgia and Around the Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	1 			 d. Priority Enforcement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1 			e. President Donald J. Trump’s 2017 Executive Orders on Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
III.	 METHODOLOGY AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
IV.	 IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE U.S.: A PRIMER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1 			 a. Defining Immigration Detention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1 					 i. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1 					 ii. Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1 					 iii. Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1 			 b. History of Modern Immigration Detention in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1 					 i. Era One: Pre-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1 					 ii. Era Two: 1980-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1 					 iii. Era Three: 2001-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1 					 iv. Era Four: 2009-2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	1 			 c. Current State of Immigration Detention in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	1 					 i. Removal, Detention, and Cost Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	1 					 ii. Private Prison Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	1 					 iii. Increased Detention Initiatives under Trump Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
V.		 LEGAL STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	1 			 a. Congressional Power over Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	1 			 b. United States Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	1 					 i. Fifth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	1						
1. Detained for Longer than 180 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	1						
2. Civil Detention Should Not Amount to Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	1			 		 ii. First Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	1						
1. Participation in Hunger Strikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	1						
2. Selective Enforcement Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	1 					 iii. Eighth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	1 			 c. Statutes and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	1					 i. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	1						
1. Expedited Removal and Detention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

	1						
2. Apprehension and Detention of Noncitizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	1						
3. Detention of Noncitizens Ordered Removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
			 d. ICE Detention Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
				
i. Food Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
				
ii. Telephone Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
				
iii. Visitation with Legal Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
				
iv. Access to Legal Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
				
v. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
VI.	 FINDINGS: GEORGIA’S TWO LARGEST IMMIGRATION DETENTION
		1 		
FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		
		1 			 a. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
			 b. Stewart Detention Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
				
i. Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
				
ii. Legal Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
				
iii. Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
				
iv. Phones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
				
v. Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
				
vi. Food and Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
				
vii. Hygiene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
				
viii. Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
				
ix. Religious Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
				
x. Medical Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
				
xi. Mental Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
				
xii. Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
				
xiii. Staff and Administrative Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
				
xiv. Hunger Strikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
			 c. Irwin County Detention Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
				
i. Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
				
ii. Legal Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
				
iii. Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
				
iv. Phones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
				
v. Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
				
vi. Food and Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
				
vii. Hygiene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
				
viii. Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
				
ix. Religious Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
				
x. Medical Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
				
xi. Mental Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
				
xii. Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
				
xiii. Staff and Administrative Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
VII.	CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I

mprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant
Detention Centers focuses on the conditions of two
detention centers in the state of Georgia: The Stewart
Detention Center (Stewart) and the Irwin County Detention
Center (Irwin). This report is an update to one created in
2012 titled Prisoners of Profit.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is the primary
statute governing immigration into the United States. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the authority
to detain the noncitizens, but this authority is not unlimited.
Immigration detention has been rapidly evolving since
September 11, 2001. Following the September 11th attacks
on the United States, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) was abolished by statute and DHS was
established. DHS was vested with the authority to
administer and enforce immigration laws. The Obama
Administration initially signaled aiming for a civil
immigration system and greater use of prosecutorial
discretion. However, there was a significant increase in
the number of people detained, as the number of beds in
facilities was increased to 34,000 per year due to the
immigration detention quota.
This report provides a first-hand account of conditions at the
Irwin and Stewart detention centers through interviews with
detained immigrants and the attorneys who represent them.
The living conditions in both detention centers neither
comply with the international standards of detention nor
do they comply with ICE’s Performance-Based National
Detention Standards (PBNDS). The remote location of
these detention centers keeps detained immigrants away
from their families and legal counsel. Transferring detained
immigrants from different parts of the country to Stewart or
Irwin separates these individuals from their family members
and legal counsel.
As the findings in Imprisoned Justice show, the list of
concerns regarding living conditions is lengthy. To offer
some examples, the food and water provided in these
detention centers are not hygienic. Either the food that is
provided is stale or spoiled, or several foreign particles are
found in it. The food served is not in sufficient quantities.
In order to buy additional food, detained immigrants have
to purchase it from the commissary, which is excessively
expensive. As a result, either detained immigrants have to go
hungry or their family members have to bare the financial
burden. Some detained immigrants also complained of not
receiving dietary accommodations for religious beliefs and
practices or health concerns. The quality of the water

supplied is another concern. The unhygienic
environment and poor living conditions not only take a
toll on the detained immigrants’ health, but also have a
negative and disturbing impact on the minds of the
individuals being held in detention. The detained
immigrants who engage in voluntary work at the
detention facilities are paid much below the minimum
wage, at times lower than $1 per day. Additionally,
detained immigrants are not provided with adequate
access to legal information, and phone usage is both
limited and expensive.
Since the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump on
January 20, 2017, the situation has only worsened. On
February 20, 2017, DHS Secretary John Kelly issued
implementing memoranda pursuant to President Trump’s
Executive Orders on border and interior enforcement.
The implementing memoranda expand the enforcement
priorities and subject all those who are in violation of
the immigration laws to arrest, detention, and removal
from the country. The effects of these memoranda on
the operation and capacity of immigration detention
centers remain to be seen.

Recommendations
Overall Recommendations
		 •	 Shut down the Stewart and Irwin detention centers;
		 •	 ICE needs to implement policies that will hold
contract facilities accountable for not complying
with ICE standards;
		 •	 ICE should terminate contracts with facilities that
do not meet its standards; and,
		 •	 ICE should use the Alternative to Detention
Program for immigrants who are eligible.

Due Process
		 •	 List of pro-bono services should be up-to-date,
actually contain free services and be distributed
to all detained immigrants upon their detention;
		 •	 Qualified interpreters must be provided at every
step of the deportation process;
		 •	 Detained immigrants should not be forced to sign
orders of removal without speaking with counsel;
		 •	 Law libraries should include up-to-date materials in
the languages spoken by detained immigrants;
		 •	 Detained immigrants should have more access to

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

5

the law libraries;
		 •	 Private space should be allocated for detained
immigrants’ phone calls to counsel and during
visitation with counsel; and,
		 •	 Attorney-client calls must not be monitored under
any circumstances.

Living Conditions
		 •	 ICE must ensure that all facilities follow the 2011
PBNDS;
		 •	 All detained immigrants must be provided a safe
living environment and receive an immediate
response when their safety is threatened;
		 •	 Meals should be served at reasonable times, and
detained immigrants should be afforded adequate
time to eat;
		 •	 Fresh fruit and vegetables must be served daily;
		 •	 Detained immigrants must be provided adequate
food portions so they are not forced to spend
money on commissary every week;
		 •	 Detained immigrants who need special diets due to
medical or religious reasons must be accommodated
adequately;
		 •	 Food quality must be improved and should be
inspected by ICE staff regularly to ensure
compliance;
		 •	 The water quality must be addressed and brought to
	 standard;
		 •	 All detained immigrants must be afforded outdoor
	 	 recreation; and,
		 •	 Bilingual guards should be present at every facility
	 during every shift to foster effective communication
	 with detained immigrants.

Medical Care
		 •	
			
			
			
		 •	
			
		 •	
		
		 •	
			
		 •	
	
		 •	
			
			

ICE must ensure that bilingual medical staff is
provided;
Each facility should provide at least one doctor and
one psychiatrist during the week;
A more effective procedure for seeking medical
attention should be put in place;
Serious medical conditions should be addressed
immediately and adequately;
Detained immigrants seeking non-emergency
medical care should be seen within 48 hours;
Specific instructions should be given to kitchen staff
for detained immigrants who need special diets; and,
Detained immigrants with mental disabilities
should not be put in segregation under any
circumstances.

6

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

Detention Center Staff
		 •	
	
			
		 •	
		
			
			
		 •	
	
		 •	
	
	

Detention staff must not create arbitrary rules that
have the effect of prohibiting attorneys from being
able to visit their clients;
The grievance process must be made accessible to
detained immigrants, and detained immigrants
must not face retaliation by detention center guards
or staff for filing grievances;
Complaints that are filed must be responded to by
the respective office in which they are filed;
Detained immigrants must not be placed in
segregation for more than 15 days as recommended
by the U.N. Special Rapporteur.

PHOTO: STEVEN RUBIN

II. PREFACE
a. Purpose
The United States is home to the largest immigration
detention operation in the world. The average cost of
detaining each individual is $127 per day. 1 In 2016, ICE
detained more than 352,000 people; the daily average was
usually between 31,000 and 34,000 people. 2 However, in
October 2016, the number reached a record high of about
41,000 people per day. 3 This report examines conditions at
two private immigrant detention centers: Stewart and Irwin.
Both detention facilities are located about three hours away
from Atlanta in southern Georgia, and have a history of
human and civil rights violations.

b. Changes in the Number of
Georgia Detention Centers
The North Georgia Detention Center (NGDC) was closed
in 2013 shortly after the Prisoners of Profit report was
published. The detention center was located in Gainesville,
Georgia and contained 502 beds, for both male and female
detained immigrants. 4 In December 2013, the Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA) (recently rebranded as Core
Civic) announced that the facility would close at the end
of that month because of a decline in population. Only
approximately 150 of the 502 available beds were filled. 5
ICE transferred the immigrants detained at NGDC to
Stewart and Irwin. 6
In response to the news of NGDC’s closing, Azadeh
Shahshahani, who at the time was the director of the ACLU
of Georgia’s National Security/Immigrants’ Rights Project,
emphasized that, while they were pleased to hear that the
facility had closed, the closure did not address the ACLU’s
concerns. 7 She noted, “We are definitely concerned that
instead of making greater use of alternatives to detention
and taking a more serious look at who needs to be detained,
ICE is now going to transfer immigrants previously detained
at this facility to Irwin and Stewart.” 8
Because of the dramatic increase in the numbers of
immigrants being detained in 2016, a new immigration
detention center opened in Folkston, Georgia in 2017. A
private corrections company, The Geo Group, signed a
five-year contract in December 2016 with Charlton County
and ICE. The new detention center has 780 beds. 9 This
development is disappointing given the private prison
companies’ record of abuse.

c. Department of Homeland
Security Initiatives Still Exist
Despite Heavy Criticism
i. The Criminal Alien Program (CAP)
Continues to Funnel Noncitizens from the
Corrections System into ICE custody.
The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) is a broad program
through which ICE conducts immigration enforcement
from the interior of the U.S. by utilizing a variety of
smaller programs. 10 CAP was created pursuant to the
Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986, which
amended INA § 242 to state: “In the case of an alien who
is convicted of an offense which makes the alien subject
to deportation, the Attorney General shall begin any
deportation proceeding as expeditiously as possible after
the date of the conviction.” 11 Thus, the program provides
guidance on how to identify, arrest, and remove priority
noncitizens who are incarcerated in federal, state, and local
prisons, while also targeting “at-large criminal aliens that
have circumvented identification.” 12 DHS’s stated goal for
CAP is to target undocumented individuals with criminal
records who pose a threat to public safety. 13
However, thousands of noncitizens with no criminal
convictions have been arrested and detained through
CAP. 14 This result is due to the fact that, in combination
with the broad categories of enforcement priorities laid
out by DHS, CAP uses arrests, not convictions, as the
indicator of a person’s dangerousness. 15 In effect,
statistically, Mexicans and Central Americans are
disproportionately targeted through CAP. 16
The implementing memoranda signed by the Secretary
of Department of Homeland Security on February 20,
2017 also take note of CAP. 17 According to the memoranda,
DHS should initiate removal proceedings, to the maximum
extent permitted, against individuals incarcerated in
federal, state, and local jurisdictions through the
institutional hearing and removal program under INA
§ 238. Thus, it can be concluded that the goal of President
Trump’s administration is to expedite the removal of all
immigrants without authorized status.

ii. § 287(g) Continues to Operate in Georgia
and Around the Country
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

7

Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 added § 287(g) to the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA). 18 Section 287(g) authorizes the
Attorney General and ICE to enter into agreements with
state and local law enforcement. Under the agreements, local
law enforcement is allowed to carry out ICE duties, provided
that they receive ICE training. 19 The purpose of § 287(g), as
stated in DHS’s Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) template,
is to “enhance the safety and security of communities by
focusing resources on identifying and processing for
removal criminal aliens and those others who fall into ICE’s
civil immigration enforcement priorities.” 20 However, the
program faced strong criticism because it delegated
authority to state and local law enforcement agents over
what was arguably a federal duty, and because it ultimately
resulted in different standards for immigration enforcement
across jurisdictions. 21 Additionally, there were numerous
civil liberties complaints, especially involving incidents of
racial profiling. 22
At the time of the publication of Prisoners of Profit, there
were sixty-nine state and local law enforcement agencies
in twenty-four states across the country involved in §
287(g). 23 Due to strong criticism, ICE revised the program
in 2012 and allowed certain § 287(g) agreements with law
enforcement agencies to expire, instead of renewing the
agreements. 24 Since 2012, there has been a decline in §
287(g) involvement. According to an ICE factsheet, ICE
currently has agreements with thirty-seven law enforcement
agencies in sixteen states across the country. 25
In March 2016, sixty-eight organizations, including the
ACLU and Project South, signed a letter addressed to then
DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and ICE Director Sarah
Saldana. 26 The letter called for the termination of all its

PHOTO: STEVEN RUBIN

8Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

existing § 287(g) agreements with state and local law
enforcement agencies and the rejection of all pending
applications for new § 287(g) agreements for three major
reasons: (1) § 287(g) agreements lead to civil rights
violations and racial profiling; (2) there is insufficient
federal oversight and a lack of a functioning complaint
procedure; and (3) 287(g) agreements undermine
community policing practices by breeding mistrust
between immigrant communities and local law
enforcement agencies. 27
In Georgia, there are four counties currently participating
in § 287(g): Cobb, Gwinnett, Hall, and Whitfield. 28 All
four extended their 2007 § 287(g) contracts with ICE until
2019. 29 Georgia’s participation in § 287(g) is reflected in
the number of ICE detainers issued. 30 In fiscal year 2007,
according to a 2014 report issued by the ACLU of Georgia
and other organizations, ICE issued seventy-five detainers
to law enforcement agencies in Georgia. In fiscal year 2008,
ICE issued 1,826 detainers, which amounts to a 2,334.67%
increase. The sharp increase corresponds directly to the
implementation of § 287(g). 31 At the time of the 2014
publication, it was estimated that in fiscal year 2013, 17,269
detainers were issued by ICE in Georgia, amounting to a
22,925% increase from 2007 to 2013. Again, this significant
increase is attributable to § 287(g) along with the aforementioned programs. 32 Although compliance with immigration
detainers is voluntary, 33 95.5% of detainers resulted in the
individual being held in detention. 34

D. Priority Enforcement Program
Prior to the Trump administration, the Priority Enforcement
Program (PEP) was in place. PEP was created by DHS in

November 2014 to replace the Secure Communities
program. 35 Previously, the Secure Communities program
was one of the ways in which ICE solicited the cooperation
of local governments in enforcing immigration laws. 36
When an individual is arrested by state or local law
enforcement authorities for a criminal offense, the
individual is fingerprinted. Those fingerprints are sent to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 37 The FBI runs
the fingerprints in a database of criminal records, and
sends the individual’s criminal history to state or local
authorities. 38
Under Secure Communities, the FBI would also send the
fingerprints to DHS. 39 If that individual had been
previously encountered and fingerprinted, the immigration
database would register a match and ICE would then
determine if the individual was removable. 40 If the
individual was found to be removable, ICE had the authority
to issue a detainer on the individual, and request that the
state or local jail hold the individual for up to forty-eight
hours so that ICE could interview the person. 41 After the
interview, ICE would decide whether or not to pursue
removal proceedings. 42
The Latino community was disproportionately affected by
Secure Communities. According to a 2011 research report
conducted by the University of California’s Berkeley School
of Law, while Latinos made up 77% of the undocumented
population in the United States, they made up 93% of those
arrested and deported nationally through this program. 43
Additionally, the Berkley study found that 37% of those
detained nationwide through Secure Communities were
not convicted of criminal offenses. 44 Under Secure
Communities, ICE assigned three levels of offenses: Level 1
offenses referred to individuals convicted of “aggravated
felonies” under § 101(a)(43) of the INA, or two or more
other felonies; Level 2 included individuals convicted of
one felony or three or more misdemeanors; and Level 3
consisted of individuals convicted solely of misdemeanors,
including minor traffic offense. 45 ICE reported that 37%
of those detained through Secure Communities were not
issued an offense level, thus suggesting that they had not
been convicted of a criminal offense. 46 In Georgia, less
than 25% of the removals that occurred through Secure
Communities from the time of its implementation in
2009 until 2013 involved those who were found to have
committed a “Level 1” offense. 47 This practice was
contrary to ICE’s enforcement priority standards. 48
By December 2011, the entire state of Georgia had joined
Secure Communities, although individual counties in
Georgia had joined prior to that date. 49 In 2009, the
activation of the first Secure Communities agreement in

Georgia clearly impacted the number of ICE arrests; from
fiscal year 2010 to 2011, the number of arrests grew by
40%. 50
At the time of the 2012 publication of Prisoners of Profit,
state governments and police officials around the
country had begun to resist implementation of Secure
Communities and there was considerable support to
terminate this program. 51 For example, the Illinois
State Police withdrew from the program because it had
not met the terms of agreement with the state. 52 The
agreement stated that the purpose of the program was to
identify and deport immigrants “who have been convicted
of serious criminal offenses.” 53 Yet, one-third of immigrants
who had been deported in Illinois under this program had
no criminal convictions. 54
Organizers across the country fought for local and state
policies limiting local law enforcement collaboration with
federal immigration authorities. 55 Since 2010, such
policies have been implemented in more than 350 cities
and counties, three states, and the District of Columbia. 56
In 2014, three counties in Georgia – Fulton, Clayton, and
DeKalb – put policies into place limiting their collaboration
with ICE. 57 DeKalb County Sheriff Jeffrey L. Mann issued
a press release announcing the end of its extending the
detention of individuals on the sole basis of detainers and
stated: “The law does not allow us to hold anyone without
probable cause. If our judicial system determines that an
individual should no longer be held in custody, it is not in
my authority to countermand that decision.” 58 Most
recently, the Fayette County Sheriff ’s Department also
adopted a policy to this effect. 59
Furthermore, recent data demonstrates that ICE has not
followed these enforcement priorities. 60 In the year prior
to the issuance of enforcement priorities, 57% of the
individuals detained by ICE had criminal convictions. 61
One year after the announcement, the percentage of
individuals detained by ICE that had criminal convictions
had fallen to 49%. 62

E. President Donald J. Trump’s
2017 Executive Orders on
Immigration
On January 25, 2017, the Priority Enforcement Program was
terminated and replaced with Secure Communities pursuant
to President Trump’s Executive Order Enhancing the Public
Safety in the Interior of the United States. 63 This Executive
Order also encourages the creation of agreements under
INA § 287(g) with local authorities and Governors. 64

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

9

President Trump also signed the Executive Order titled
Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,
which aims to ramp up the policing of the border and
calls for building a wall on the southern border of the U.S.
This Executive Order requires the Secretary of Homeland
Security to use all available resources to immediately
construct detention facilities and establish contract or
operation detention facilities along or near the southern
border. It also directs DHS to prioritize the detention of
noncitizens pending removal proceedings after
apprehension. 65

The breadth of the new enforcement priorities places every
noncitizen at risk, particularly those who have a criminal
history. A few weeks after the Executive Orders were signed,
CNN reported that ICE raids
in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and
San Antonio resulted in more than 680 arrests. 69
Immigration advocates and critics of the Executive Orders
argued that the raids targeted low-priority immigrants and
that there is a severe lack of transparency by ICE about the
location and individuals who were targeted in the raids.
70 Thus, even in the midst of uncertainty surrounding the
Executive Orders, it is clear that this administration seeks
to target and deport more immigrants than the Obama
administration.

Further, on February 20, 2017, current DHS Secretary
John Kelly signed the implementing memorandum
Implementing the President’s Border Security and
Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies. This
memorandum focuses on enforcement at the border,
including expansions to no-process removals at the
border and increased detention. 66 Also signed on the
same day, a second implementing memorandum titled
Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the
National Interest focuses on interior enforcement,
including expansions to quicker removals for certain
noncitizens with criminal histories and revised
enforcement priorities. 67 According to the implementing
memorandum and underlying Executive Order,
“The Department no longer will exempt classes or
categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.”
The memorandum directs personnel to prioritize for
removal those noncitizens described in sections 212(a)(2),
(a)(3), (A)(6)(c), 235(b) and (c), and 237(a)(2) and (4) of
the statute, and prioritizes the following noncitizens who
are otherwise removable:
		 •	
		 •	
			
		 •	
			
		 •	
			
			
		 •	
			
		 •	
			
			
		 •	
			
			

Convicted of any criminal offense;
Charged with any criminal offense that has not
been resolved;
Have committed acts which constitute a
chargeable criminal offense;
Have engaged in fraud or willful
misrepresentation in connection with any
official matter;
Have abused any program related to receipt
of public benefits;
Are subject to a final order of removal but
have not complied with the legal obligation
to depart the U.S.; and,
In the judgment of an immigration officer,
otherwise pose a risk to public safety or
national security. 68

PHOTO: MARCIN KEMPSKI

10

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

III. METHODOLOGY AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I

mprisoned Justice is based on research conducted by
Project South in conjunction with Penn State Law’s
Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, a special
student project of Mercer Law School, Alterna, Georgia
Detention Watch, and the Georgia Latino Alliance for
Human Rights. The research and interviews for this
project were conducted between April 2016 and March
2017. Volunteer attorneys, law students, and interpreters
with Project South interviewed thirty-one detained
immigrants who were held at Irwin, forty detained
immigrants held at Stewart, and twelve immigrants who
were deported back to Guatemala, but were housed at
Stewart or Irwin before deportation. Additionally,
students from Penn State Law’s Center for Immigrants’
Rights clinic surveyed fourteen lawyers of detained
immigrants about their experiences at Stewart and Irwin.

supervisors were: Jennifer Moore of Macon and Nancy
Quynn of Tifton. The two Mercer Law School faculty
supervisors were: Timothy Floyd and Mark Jones.
The authors are indebted to the many detained immigrants
who shared their stories of detention for Imprisoned Justice
as well as to the attorneys who shared their experiences with
representing clients at Irwin and Stewart. We also thank
Victor C. Romero, Rebecca Mattson, Casey Millburg, and
the marketing team at Penn State Law for assistance with
review, layout, and editing of this report.

This report was drafted and edited by the following students
from Penn State Law’s Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic:
Kritika Bedi (’17), Susanna Chehata (’17), Brianni Frazier
(’17), and Shushan Sadjadi (’18) for Project South and under
the supervision of Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, the Center’s
director and Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar at Penn State
Law- University Park.
The report was managed by Project South’s Legal and
Advocacy Director Azadeh Shahshahani as well as Project
South’s legal intern and extern Amanda Parris, of Emory
University School of Law, and Kyleen Burke of Northeastern
University School of Law.
Additional drafting, editing, and detained immigrant
interviews were conducted by Project South’s legal interns
and externs Amanda Parris, Kyleen Burke, Dana Lohrberg,
Robert Dong, Aaron McClellan, Lauren A. Schenkel,
Shiyuan Pei, and the following law students: Tim Carey,
Karla Alejandra Diaz, Kate Craig, and Brenda Arzola. The
following interpreters also helped with the interviews:
Adrian Bernal, Holly Patrick, Emma Meyers, Jose G. Perez,
Cait Pingel, and Ximana Vasquez. The following attorneys
helped conduct interviews at the detention centers: Javeria
Jamil, Alison Prout, Amy Durrence, Manoj S. Vargese,
Melissa Carpenter, David Berhanu, Ben W. Thorpe,
Charlene Austin, Radha Manthe, Melanie Medalle, Salomon
Laguerre, Bukhari R. Nurriddin, Greg Sale, Sarah Akber,
and Ryan Behndleman.
The following law students from Mercer law school took
part in the interviews at Irwin: Alan Smith, Ana Correo,
Anzhelika Daki, Breona Ward, Lauren Beasley, Lauren
Jones, Minji Park, Sheryle Dickens, and Hernan (Tony)
Diaz-Caballero. The two attorneys who served as field

In preparing this report, we reviewed primary and secondary
sources pertaining to immigration enforcement. These
sources include, but are not limited to: the U.S. Constitution,
Immigration and Nationality Act, Department of Homeland
Security memoranda, and regulations. Other documents
reviewed include: agreements for operation of the facilities, grievances filed by detained immigrants, human rights
standards and regulations, reports from ICE, and documents
obtained from the government through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).
Both attorney and detained immigrant stories are highlighted
throughout the report. The attorneys interviewed represent
clients at Stewart and/or Irwin, and have first-hand insight
into all aspects of the detention experience. Electronic surveys
were circulated to several listservs during the months of
September and October 2016. The surveys contained fifteen
questions and a field for comments to capture the attorneys’
experiences dealing with clients at Irwin and Stewart. The
attorneys surveyed were given an option to follow up with
more information through phone interviews with students
at Penn State Law’s Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic.
Many were gracious enough to follow up by phone and detail
particularly concerning aspects of their experiences at one or
both facilities. The stories told by these attorneys provided
us with significant information regarding the conditions at
Irwin and Stewart, and to a lesser degree, how they affected
removal proceedings. The tireless efforts of these attorneys
and their contributions to the immigrant community are
invaluable and have not gone unnoticed.
Detained immigrants were interviewed in-person at Irwin or
Stewart by pro bono attorneys, legal interns, interpreters, and
other volunteers working with Project South. Occasionally,
a legal intern followed up with immigrants and facilitated
additional phone interviews while interviewees were still
in detention. Other follow up interviews were done after an
immigrant was released. Sometimes interviews took place
with the assistance of interpreters. Interview questions were
both open and closed questions about the individual’s life

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

11

inside and outside of detention. Many immigrants decided
to remain anonymous while others were willing and wanting
to share their names. Some names have been changed for
purposes of this report. The names of the interviewees were
compiled from other non-profit organizations, referrals from
detained immigrants, or direct requests via phone calls or
letters from individuals being detained or their loved ones.
The experiences these detained immigrants shared allowed
us to gain insight into every aspect of detention at these
facilities. The stories from these individuals provide a unique
glimpse into life at Irwin and Stewart.
Citations are included for individual detained immigrant
interviews in the following format: the interviewing
organization, name of the detention facility, and date of
the interview. Citations are not included for conclusions
made by more than one detained immigrant. Further,
citations are not included for the majority of individual
detained immigrant interviews referenced without
quotation. Supporting documentation of all detained
immigrant interviews is on file with the authors. Many
of the experiences that were commonly expressed by
detained immigrants shed light on significant due process
and human rights concerns. Detained immigrants shared
their experiences voluntarily, and though many expressed
a fear of retaliation for doing so, they were willing to take
the risk for the sake of this documentation project and the
hopes of shining a light on the situation of immigrants held
at these facilities.

About Project South
Founded in 1986, Project South has developed thousands
of leaders within communities directly affected by racism
and economic injustice in order to build social movements
to eliminate poverty. For over thirty years, Project South has
used popular education techniques as an organizing tool
to build a base of skilled leadership that directly challenges
racism and poverty at the roots. Project South builds
communications capacities among low-income families of
color and provides multiple mechanisms to shift public
dialogue on local, regional, and national levels. The Legal
& Advocacy department of Project South connects legal and
advocacy work and movement lawyers with grassroots
organizations with a focus on immigrants’ rights and
defending Muslim communities against state repression.
Their work is also focused on connecting with and
supporting social justice movements in the Global South.

12

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

About Penn State Law’s Center for
Immigrants’ Rights Clinic
Founded in 2008, Penn State Law’s Center for Immigrants’
Rights Clinic is an in-house clinic where law students produce
white papers, practitioner toolkits, and primers of national
impact for institutional clients based in Washington D.C.,
and across the nation. Organizational clients have included
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), American
Immigration Council (AIC), Human Rights First, Kids in
Need of Defense (KIND), National Guest worker Alliance
(NGA), and National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC)
among others. Students at the Clinic also engage in
community outreach and education on immigration and
provide legal support in individual cases. The Clinic is
directed by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, whose teaching goal
is for students to gain the skills required to be effective
immigration advocates and attorneys. Students have primary responsibility in making case/project-related decisions,
reflecting deliberatively on their work, and collaborating
with clients to achieve positive results. Institutional
affiliation for faculty and students in the Penn State Law
Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic is provided for
identification purposes only and does not represent the
views of the institution.

About a special student project of
Mercer Law School
Students at Mercer Law School assisted in conducting
interviews with detained immigrants and interpreting at
the Irwin County Detention Center in Fall semester 2016.

About Georgia Detention Watch
Alterna (located in LaGrange, Georgia) is a bilingual
community of Christ followers devoted to faithful acts of
hospitality, mercy, and justice.

About the Georgia Latino Alliance
for Human Rights
The Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights (GLAHR) was
established in 2001 with a mission to educate, organize, and
empower Latinos in Georgia to defend and advance their civil
and human rights. GLAHR is a community-based organization that develops statewide grassroots leadership in Latino
immigrant communities. Over the past ten years, GLAHR
has established a powerful network of informed and engaged
community members through base-building strategies that
defend and advance the civil and human rights of Latinos and
immigrants living in Georgia.

PHOTO: STEVEN RUBIN

PHOTO: STEVE PAVEY

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

13

IV. IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE U.S.:
A PRIMER
a. Defining Immigration Detention
i. Background
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the
authority to detain noncitizens present in the U.S. pending
a determination of their immigration status. 71 DHS houses
two agencies responsible for apprehending and detaining
noncitizens: Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 72 CBP
apprehends individuals at the border and ports of entry for
suspected criminal activity, unlawful entry into the U.S., or
presence without status, and the agency has the power to put
individuals in CBP short-term detention. 73 ICE focuses on
apprehending individuals in the interior of the U.S. and runs
the long-term detention system; the agency subcontracts
with county jails and private prisons for most of the
detention space. 74 The U.S. Department of Justice’s
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) houses
the immigration court system. Once a person is placed into
removal proceedings, immigration judges within EOIR
adjudicate immigration cases by interpreting and
administering immigration laws. 75
While immigration detention may bear the marks of
criminal detention, the Supreme Court has characterized
immigration detention as civil in nature. 76 The justification
for immigration detention is twofold: 1) to prevent flight,
and 2) to protect the community from potentially dangerous
individuals. 77 Because immigration detention is
characterized as civil, detained immigrants are unable
to benefit from the constitutional safeguards available to
defendants in the criminal justice system. 78

ii. Population
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is a primary
source for immigration law. The INA states that any “alien”
may be detained pending a removal decision. 79 An “alien”
is defined as any person who is not a national or citizen of
the United States. 80 Thus, this definition includes adults
and children, lawful permanent residents, and individuals
with immigrant or nonimmigrant visas. Additionally, as
there is no requirement of a criminal record, individuals
with no criminal record may also be detained. 81

14

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

Additionally, the INA prescribes categories of noncitizens
who must be detained pursuant to the policy of mandatory
detention, which requires that certain noncitizens be
detained upon arrival, at the time of arrest, and when
receiving a final removal order. 82 Individuals arriving at
a port of entry with a claim seeking asylum are detained
pending a credible fear determination. 83 Individuals who
have received final removal orders are detained until their
physical deportation, which must be within ninety days. 84
Lastly, individuals who have committed or have been
convicted of certain crimes that constitute grounds for
inadmissibility or deportability, as defined in the INA,
must be detained.” 85
The INA also states that certain individuals who are not
subject to mandatory detention may be released. The
government may release noncitizens on their own
recognizance, on bond, or with certain conditions such
as an ankle bracelet. 86 In the 2016 report, Lifeline on
Lockdown, Human Rights First asserts that although the
purpose of bond is to secure the individual’s appearance
at future hearings, in practice, it keeps more people in
detention because of their economic circumstances and
high cost of bonds. 87 The report found that bonds range
from the statutory minimum of $1,500 up to $40,000. 88
Many detained immigrants interviewed for this report
expressed their frustration with the bond process at
Stewart. Some reported not even attempting to seek bond
because it is well known that no one gets bonded out of
Stewart.

iii. Location
There are three different types of facilities where detained
immigrants can be held. 89 In addition to ICE-owned
immigration facilities, ICE contracts out to local government or private prison companies to run the facilities
where detained immigrants are held. Service Processing
Centers (SPC) are facilities that are owned and operated
by ICE. 90 Contract Detention Facilities (CDF) are owned
and operated by private prison companies. 91 Inter-Governmental Service Agreement (IGSA) facilities are local
correctional facilities or detention centers that are used to
house detained immigrants. 92

b. History of Modern Immigration
Detention in the United States
There have been four general “eras” of immigration
detention in the United States. The first was prior to 1980
when approximately thirty people per day were in
immigration detention. 93 The second era, from 1980 to
2002, saw a surge in immigration detention due to a massive
influx of immigrants and a change in policy. 94 The third
era was between 2002 and 2008, during former President
George W. Bush’s administration, when the Department of
Homeland Security was formed and was granted the authority over immigration service and enforcement functions. 95
The fourth era was during former President Obama’s administration when Congress imposed a national detention bed
quota. 96 This era closed with a historically high number of
detentions in the fall of 2016 and the election of President
Donald J. Trump. The U.S. is currently entering a fifth era
of immigration detention under President Donald J. Trump
due to dramatic changes in enforcement priorities and calls
for increased immigration detention through Executive
Orders and implementing memoranda.

Additionally, the former INS used other methods as
deterrence to detention. 107 One of the changes that
occurred was the enactment of the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which both legalized the status
of certain undocumented noncitizens and authorized greater
enforcement methods. 108 IRCA provided a path to legal
status to individuals who met the following requirements:
proof of residency in the U.S. since January 1986; a clean
criminal record; registration within the Selective Service
System; and a basic knowledge of U.S. history, government,
and the English language. 109 On the other hand, IRCA
prohibited businesses from hiring undocumented workers
and placed sanctions upon those that did. 110
Additionally, greater public attention to increasing drug
use rates caused INS to focus on detaining and removing
noncitizens convicted of drug offenses. 111 In 1988, the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act created the concept of “aggravated
felony” for certain drug offenses. 112 Detention is mandatory
for an immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony. Thus,
under the classification of aggravated felony, the Attorney
General has no discretion concerning custody determinations. 113
In 1996, another expansion to the use of immigration
detention occurred with the passage of the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRAIRA). 114 These Acts amended the INA by expanding
the aggravated felony definition and broadening the use of
mandatory detention. 115 Additionally, through IIRAIRA,
Congress granted $15 million to support the detention and
removal of noncitizens with ties to terrorist groups. 116

i. Era One: Pre-1980
During the first era, individuals were detained in three
primary circumstances. 97 First, when a noncitizens’
admissibility into the country was in question due to their
health or support reasons, they were detained. 98 Second,
an individual was detained during a noncitizen’s removal
proceeding. 99 Third, detention was used at times of
national security. Thus, immigration detention was more
of the exception, rather than the norm for immigrants.
Furthermore, Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) tended to release individuals who were suspected
of violating immigration law. 102

ii. Era Two: 1980–2001
The second era of immigration detention in the U.S. was
triggered by a massive influx of Haitian, Cuban, and Central
American immigrants, which led to policy changes. 103 In
addition to the influx of immigrants of color, increased
political consciousness of drug use led the public to frame
people of color as undeserved recipients of welfare. The
solution that was advanced was detention. 104 In 1982,
President Ronald Reagan ordered the mandatory detention
of all arriving Haitians suspected of violating immigration
laws. 105 In contrast, however, Cuban citizens arriving to
the U.S. were treated more generously due to the political
climate. 106

Thus, in this era, the U.S. saw the enactment of more
aggressive detention legislation in response to public
sentiments. The U.S. began to transition from immigration
detention being the exception to becoming the norm for
immigrants. The enactment of IRCA, IIRAIRA, and AEDPA
expanded the classes of immigrants to be detained and took
away the Attorney General’s ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion in certain situations. This trend continued
throughout the next era of immigration detention in the
U.S. under the George W. Bush administration.

iii. Era Three: 2001–2008
Similar to the previous era, changes to immigration policy
were triggered by political events. In response to the
attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress passed the
Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002 which abolished
INS and created the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). 117 Prior to this legislation, the Attorney General

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

15

had the sole authority to administer and enforce U.S.
immigration laws. 118 DHS was granted much of the
immigration service and enforcement functions formerly
held by INS, and the Secretary of Homeland Security was
vested with the power to administer and enforce immigration laws. 119
Notably, during this era, for the first time, Congress placed
a requirement on the number of beds that must be available
in immigration detention centers. With the passage of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) in
2004, Congress directed DHS to keep a minimum of 8,000
available beds at immigration detention facilities between
fiscal years 2006 and 2010. 120

iv. Era Four: 2009–2016
Former President Barack Obama, during his campaign
and at the beginning of his presidency, made a promise to
introduce an immigration bill within the first year of his administration. 121 President Barack Obama also announced
plans to transform immigration detention to a “truly civil
detention system.” 122 Some of the plans included reviewing
government contracts with local jails and private prisons
with the end goal of placing noncitizens in detention facilities more suitable for individuals without a criminal history
facing deportation. 123
The first step toward transforming immigration detention occurred in October 2009, when ICE issued a report
highlighting findings and recommendations pertaining to
the immigration detention system. 124 The report found
the conditions in which noncitizens were being detained
to be entirely inappropriate given their noncriminal status.
125 The recommendations for the future were as follows:
expanding access to legal materials, legal counsel, visitation,
and religious practice; developing unique standards for
serving special populations such as women, families, and
asylum-seekers; establishing a well-managed medical care
system; and, providing federal oversight of key detention operations, as well as tracking performance and outcomes. 126
Despite former President Barack Obama’s statements re the
aim to transform immigration detention and recommendations from ICE’s own report, no comprehensive legislation
was passed to further these recommendations. Moreover,
during the Obama administration, Congress increased the
quota for beds in immigration detention centers. With the
passage of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act in 2010, Congress required that DHS maintain
33,400 beds in immigration detention centers daily, starting
in 2010. 127 The Consolidated Appropriations Act in 2012
raised the quota to 34,000 beds per year. 128

16

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

On a positive note, this era saw more transparency around
the use of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutorial discretion
refers to DHS’s decision on whether or not to enforce immigration laws against a person or group of persons. 129 There
are three theories behind prosecutorial discretion: (1) the
economic theory that emphasizes that ICE has the resources
to deport less than 4% of the deportable population; (2) the
humanitarian theory that acknowledges that some individuals have compelling reasons to stay in the United States; and
(3) a theory that Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia coins as a political one that centers on the relationship between congressional inaction and the public’s demand for an administrative
solution. 130
One effort to further the use of prosecutorial discretion was
the issuance of the memorandum titled Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention,
and Removal of Aliens (hereinafter Morton Memorandum).
131 This memorandum was issued in June 2011, by former
ICE Director John Morton. The Morton Memorandum
called for the use of prosecutorial discretion for economic
reasons, stating that ICE “has limited resources to remove
those illegally in the United States” and must prioritize the
use of those resources. 132 Similarly, while ICE may exercise its discretion at any stage of the enforcement process,
the Morton Memorandum stated that it is preferable to
exercise discretion as early as possible to preserve government resources. 133 The Morton Memorandum provided a
nonexclusive list of factors to determine whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion, including: ICE’s enforcement
priorities; the individual’s immigration history and criminal
history; whether the individual has a U.S. citizen spouse,
child, or parent; the individual’s ties to their home county;
and, the conditions in the individual’s home country. 134
ICE issued a second memorandum in June 2011 titled Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and Plaintiffs
(hereinafter Victims Memorandum). 135 The goal of the Victims Memorandum was to set a policy regarding the use of
prosecutorial discretion in removal cases involving victims
and witnesses of crime. 136 The memorandum stated that it
is against ICE policy to initiate removal proceedings against
individuals known to be victims or witnesses of crimes,
absent aggravating factors. 137 ICE officials were directed to
exercise appropriate discretion on a case-by-case basis when
making decisions in these cases. 138
The Victims Memorandum provided that when exercising
such discretion, particular attention should be paid to: (1)
victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, or other
serious crimes; (2) witnesses involved in pending criminal
investigations or prosecutions; (3) plaintiffs in non-frivolous
lawsuits regarding civil rights or liberties violations; and (4)

PHOTO: STEVE PAVEY

individuals engaging in a protected activity related to civil or
other rights. 139 Aggravating factors included: national security concerns, a serious criminal history, that the noncitizen
poses a threat to public safety, or that the noncitizen had
participated in immigration fraud. 140
Efforts to affirm the use of prosecutorial discretion were
made by former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. In 2014, former Secretary Johnson issued the memorandum titled Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and
Removal of Undocumented Immigrants (hereinafter Johnson
Memorandum). The Johnson Memorandum superseded
and rescinded the aforementioned Morton Memorandum.
Additionally, the Johnson Memorandum reaffirmed the various ways prosecutorial discretion could be exercised, such
as who should be arrested, who should be detained, and
whether to grant deferred action, parole, or a stay of removal. 141 Importantly, this memorandum outlined the priority
enforcement system. 142 This system set the priorities for
individual to be apprehended and detained by ICE. The first
priority was “aliens” who were “apprehended at the border
or ports of entry or attempting to unlawfully enter the United States” and those convicted of an “aggravated felony.” 143
The second priority included “aliens” convicted of a misdemeanor, which included domestic violence offenses. 144
However, if the noncitizen is a victim of domestic violence,
it was considered a mitigating factor. 145 The third priority
was “aliens” who had been issued final orders of removal
on or after January 1, 2014. 146 The individuals in this class
were considered the lowest priority for apprehension and
removal. 147

Additionally, the Johnson Memorandum stressed the limited
number of resources available to DHS, and stated that “[a]
bsent extraordinary circumstances or the requirement
or mandatory detention, field office directors should not
expend detention resources on aliens who are known to be
suffering from serious physical or mental illness, who are
disabled, elderly, pregnant, or nursing, who demonstrate that
they are primary caretakers of children or an infirm person,
or whose detention is otherwise not in the public interest.”
148 The Johnson Memorandum even went a step further
and required special agents to obtain approval from the ICE
Field Office Director for the detention of immigrants who
are not subject to mandatory detention and fell within one
of the aforementioned categories. 149
However, data demonstrates that ICE did not follow these
enforcement priorities. 150 In the year prior to issuance of
the Johnson Memorandum, 57% of the individuals detained
by ICE had criminal convictions. 151 One year after the announcement, the percentage of individuals detained by ICE
that had criminal convictions had fallen to 49%. 152
Lastly, this era saw the implementation of landmark policy
regarding immigration enforcement priorities when former
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued the
memorandum titled Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with
Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as
Children, which created the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals Program (DACA) in June 2012. 153 This program
deferred removal of certain undocumented individuals who
came to the United States as children. 154 In 2015, a survey
of DACA recipients found that 96% of the respondents were

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

17

either in school or had employment, 57% earned money to
help their families, DACA recipients had an average wage increase of 45%, and 92% of respondents pursued educational
opportunities they were unable to access before DACA. 155
Former President Obama attempted to expand this program
in 2014 when he issued an Executive Action expanding the
group of individuals who would be eligible for DACA and
established Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and
Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). 156 DAPA would
have deferred removal of certain undocumented parents of
U.S. citizens and permanent residents. 157 However, DAPA
was enjoined by the District Court for the Southern District
of Texas. The injunction was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court failed to rule on it,
effectively blocking the implementation of both programs.158
Overall, in this era, the U.S. did not see significant change
in regard to immigration detention center standards other
than reports and recommendations. However, there was an
effort under the Obama administration to use prosecutorial
discretion more broadly and minimize the classes of immigrants who should be considered enforcement priorities.
Unfortunately, many of the efforts and memoranda issued

“
	

under the Obama administration have been rescinded by
current President Donald J. Trump.

c. Current State of Immigration
Detention in the United States
i. Removal, Detention, and Cost Statistics
In 2015, ICE reported that it removed 235,418 individuals.
159 Out of this number, ICE reported that 59% had criminal
convictions. 160 ICE reportedly detained a daily average of
28,449 immigrants in 2015. 161 Since 2015, this number
has increased significantly. In August 2016, ICE reportedly
detained 33,676 immigrants. 162 Then, in October 2016, ICE
reportedly detained a historic high of more than 40,000 immigrants. Immigration detention costs American tax payers
billions of dollars per year. In 2016, the cost for immigration
detention was $6.1 billion. 163 ICE requested $6,230,206,000
for fiscal year 2017. 164
Advocates have long called for greater use of Alternatives to
Detention Programs. The Alternatives to Detention Program

My dad came to the U.S. when I was a toddler

and I stayed behind in Guatemala. I’m from an indigenous group in Guatemala and had been living with my
grandparents. But the gangs and government wanted to kill me, so I fled to find my father and crossed the border
through Mexico seeking asylum.
I found my father and lived with my parents and my three little sisters, who are citizens, while attending the local
high school in Atlanta. One morning at 5 a.m., police officers came to my house. I didn’t know what they wanted
or that it had to do with immigration, but I was taken into custody and detained in the Atlanta City Detention
Center before being transferred to Irwin and then to Stewart. I have been fighting my final deportation order, but
have not seen a judge since I’ve been at Stewart. When I go to court, no one tells me what’s happening, and I can’t
understand because it’s all in English.
All I do is sleep, eat, read the Bible, and sleep some more. The food is not good and dinner is served at 4:30 p.m.
so by 8 or 9, I’m hungry again and I have to buy food from commissary because I’m so hungry. My family is afraid
to visit me because they don’t want to be detained too, so I haven’t seen them. I often miss my family and friends,
and my high school doesn’t know that I am here at Stewart. When I think too much about all of these
things I get sad and I cry. 172

— A detained immigrant from Mexico described her experience at Stewart
18

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

“

(ATD) monitors lower-risk noncitizens in a non-detention
setting through intensive supervision or electronic monitoring. 165 ATD programs include: parole/release on own
recognizance, bond, check-ins at ICE offices, home visits
and check-ins, telephonic monitoring, and GPS monitoring
through an electronic ankle bracelet. 166 It is important to
note that, with the exception of bond and parole, all of the
listed ATD programs are administered by private prison
companies such as the GEO Group, Inc. 167 Recent data
shows that the ATD program had an average daily use of
nearly 27,000. 168

numbers of immigrants detained and the length of their
detention. 181 The three corporations holding the largest
percentage of ICE detention contracts collectively spent
at least $45 million between 2002 and 2012 on campaign
donations and lobbyists at the state and federal levels. 182
Between 2004 and 2014, CCA alone spent $18 million on
lobbying Congress for Homeland Security appropriations.

However, these programs are not without their flaws. Critics
of these alternatives note that ICE often lacks clear and
up-to-date guidance or enforcement policies for these programs, which leaves the potential for abuse and arbitrary decisions regarding placement in the programs. 169 Additionally, the use of ankle monitors leaves those placed under this
program feeling criminalized. 170 The ankle monitor also
restricts their travel and physical ability to move around. 171

Despite the astounding cost of immigration detention,
President Donald J. Trump has called for expanded
enforcement priorities and immigration detention. On
February 20, 2017, current DHS Secretary John Kelley
issued two implementing memoranda pursuant to President
Trump’s Executive Orders. First, the implementing
memorandum Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to
Serve the National Interest rescinded the aforementioned
Johnson Memorandum. 184 Department personnel are
directed to initiate enforcement actions against “removable
aliens” consistent with President Trump’s enforcement
priorities identified in Executive Order Enhancing Public
Safety in the Interior of the United States and any other
guidance issued pursuant to this memorandum. 185
DHS personnel have complete authority to arrest
unauthorized immigrants and initiate removal
proceedings against those whom they believe to be in
violation of immigration laws. 186

Despite these flaws, there is potential for ATD programs
when used correctly (and not as an alternative form of
detention) to reduce the cost of immigration detention.

ii. Private Prison Contractors
Much of the high cost of immigration detention is due to
its privatization. Private prison corporations have played
an increasingly dominant role in immigration detention
in the United States. 173 ICE’s largest detention contractor
is Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). 174 As of
December 31, 2015, CCA owned or controlled sixty-six
correctional and detention facilities and managed an additional eleven facilities owned by its government partners,
with a total capacity of approximately 88,500 beds in twenty
states and the District of Columbia. 175 The largest of these
detention centers is in Dilley, Texas. 176 Overall, in 2015,
72% of immigration detention beds were located in facilities
run by for-profit prison corporations under ICE contracts.
177 This is in stark contrast to the 7% of federal and state
non-immigration related incarcerated individuals who were
held in for-profit detention in 2014. 178 Studies show that
asylum-seekers detained in for-profit immigration facilities
have only an 8.1% asylum grant rate, as opposed to asylum-seekers detained in ICE-operated facilities who have
a 13.5% grant rate. 179 This significant difference can be
attributed to the limited access to legal services and other
poor conditions. 180
In addition to their major role in immigration detention,
private corporations actively influence legislators through
lobbying efforts and impact the drafting of influential
immigration legislation, which has led to increases in the

183

iii. Increased Detention Initiatives under
President Donald J. Trump

Secretary Kelly issued another memorandum
implementing the Executive Order Border Security and
Immigration Enforcement Improvements on February 20,
2017. This memorandum titled Implementing the President’s
Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
Policies, calls for the immediate detention of “aliens arriving
in the U.S. and deemed inadmissible or otherwise described
in section 235(b) of the INA pending final determination
of whether to order them removed.” 187 The tone and
language contained in the memorandum and the
Executive Order make it clear that immigration detention
will be expanded under the Trump administration.
The stated rationale behind increased detention of
immigrants apprehended at the border is that “detention
prevents such aliens from committing crimes while at large
in the United States, ensures that aliens will appear for
their removal proceedings, and substantially increases the
likelihood that aliens lawfully ordered removed will be
removed.” 188 The memorandum contains very limited
exceptions to detention that will be determined on a
case-by-case basis by ICE agents. Thus, we can reasonably
expect immigration detention to increase during this
administration.

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

19

V. LEGAL STANDARDS
The scope of immigration law standards, case law, and
treaties is vast. This report highlights those standards that
pertain to immigration detention facility conditions.

a. Congressional Power over
Immigration
The federal government is authorized to control who may
enter the U.S. and who may be removed through deportation. 189 This power is not specifically granted by the
Constitution. 190 Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has
recognized a broad plenary power that gives the federal
government control over immigration issues. 191 However,
the government does not have the power to act outside of
the Constitution.

b. United States Constitution
The Supreme Court has stated that while the government
has the power to create and enforce immigration laws, such
power is subject to constitutional limitations. 192 The Court
has affirmed that the Fifth Amendment protects all persons
who have entered the U.S. and that the government cannot
deny “any person of life, liberty or property without due
process of the law,” regardless of race or national origin. 193
The Court has also made it clear that the guarantee of Fifth
Amendment due process extends to individuals “whose
presence in this country is unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” 194 This means that noncitizens who have entered the
U.S., legally or illegally, cannot be expelled without the government following established procedures. 195 Moreover, the
Court has also confirmed that the Equal Protection Clause
applies to noncitizens, whether or not they have legal status.
196 On the other hand, the Court has recognized a distinction between noncitizens who have “entered” the U.S. and
those outside the geographic borders of the U.S. 197

i. Fifth Amendment
1. Noncitizens Should Not Be Detained for Longer
than 180 Days after Receiving a Final Removal
Order
In 2001, the Supreme Court decided an influential case on
immigration detention, Zadvydas v. Davis. 198 The plaintiffs,
Kestutis Zadvydas and Kim Ho Ma, were noncitizens who
had received a final order of removal, but were still being
held in detention after the ninety-day statutory “removal
period” had ended. 199 The Court acknowledged that “in-

20

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

definite detention” poses a “serious constitutional problem”
given a noncitizen’s Due Process rights. 200 The Court
therefore concluded that individuals whom “the government
finds itself unable to remove” six months after issuing a final
order of removal should be released. 201 In order to trigger
this protection, a detained immigrant must “provid[e] good
reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” 202 In instances
where the court determines removal may be foreseeable, the
court should weigh the individual’s liberty interest against
their potential threat to public safety. 203
In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit applied Zadvydas to the case of an asylee from Cameroon named Maxi Sopo. 204 Sopo had spent more than four
years in ICE custody at both the Stewart Detention Center
and the Irwin County Detention Center. 205 The court found
that Sopo’s detention was “unreasonable, and, therefore, a
violation of the Due Process Clause.” 206 The court ordered
that ICE immediately hold an “individualized bond inquiry”
for Sopo. 207 As this report was being published, Sopo was
still detained, but had been transferred to Stewart. 208

2. Civil Detention Should Not Amount to Punishment
Although it bears the marks of criminal incarceration,
immigration detention is civil and therefore entirely separate
from the criminal legal system. The Court has acknowledged that “detention violates [the Due Process] Clause
unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with
adequate procedural protections, or in certain special and
‘narrow’ nonpunitive circumstances . . .” 210 Whenever the
government incarcerates an individual who has not been
convicted of a crime, it must assure that the conditions of
their detention do not “amount to punishment.” 211 Conditions of detention are punitive when they are “excessive”
relative to their stated purpose. 212 The Court has determined that deportation is not punishment. 213 However, the
Court has affirmed that “[p]ersons who have been involuntarily committed to a state institution are entitled to more
considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than
criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed
to punish.” 214 Former Justice David Souter has used these
principles to argue that immigration detention be subject to
“heightened, substantive due process scrutiny” that would
require the government to demonstrate a “‘sufficiently compelling’ governmental need.” 215

ii. First Amendment
The text of the First Amendment states that “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.” 216 While the rights to assembly and
petition are afforded to “the people,” the right to religion,
speech, and the press are stated in terms of Congress’ limitations on creating laws that infringe on those rights. 217 In
at least two cases, the Supreme Court has held that the First
Amendment applies to noncitizens present in the U.S. 218

1. Participation in Hunger Strikes

In April 2016, the ACLU filed a class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of detained immigrants whose bonds were set too
high. 228 The complaint alleges that the detained immigrants’ Eighth Amendment rights were violated because
the Constitution does not permit the government to detain
individuals and set bond without a determination of their
ability to pay the bond amount and whether an alternative
form of bond or other conditions of supervision, alone or
in combination with a lower bond, can sufficiently mitigate
flight risk. 229

c. Statutes and Regulations
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

While the Supreme Court has not definitively addressed
whether the right to free speech is afforded to non-resident
immigrants, the question has been raised numerous times in
situations where detained immigrants have gone on hunger
strikes to protest the conditions of detention facilities. In
the case Pineda Cruz v. Thompson, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas in April 2014, 219 the
plaintiffs were mothers seeking asylum who were detained
with their children at the Karnes County Residential Center
in Karnes City, Texas. 220 The plaintiffs participated in a
hunger strike to protest the sub-standard prison conditions.
ICE responded by locking them in isolation cells, interrogating them, taking away their work assignments, and
threatening to separate them from their children via transfer
to another detention center. 221 The plaintiffs sought an
injunction to prevent ICE from retaliating with such actions.
222 The plaintiffs alleged that their First Amendment rights
were violated. 223 They stated that participating in a hunger
strike is a form of freedom of speech protected by the First
Amendment, and that the government violated that right by
retaliating against them. 224 Although the case resulted in a
voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs, this case illustrates how
hunger strikes by detained immigrants should be a protected
First Amendment activity.

iii. Eighth Amendment
The Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted.” 225 Because immigration detention
is civil in nature, claims of deliberate indifference cannot be
brought under the Eighth Amendment, but rather, under the
Fifth Amendment due process clause. 226 However, courts
have used the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference
test when detained immigrants bring such claims under the
Fifth Amendment due process clause. 227

As discussed in Section IV of this report, immigration detention is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA), which is also codified in the U.S. Code. This section
highlights a few of the provisions related to detention.

1. Expedited Removal and Detention
The inspection by immigration officers, expedited removal of inadmissible arriving noncitizens, and the referral
of noncitizens for hearing are detailed in 8 U.S.C. § 1225.
“Expedited removal” applies to certain noncitizens arriving
at U.S. border without documents or false documents, and
also to those who entered without inspection and are found
within 100 miles of the border of the U.S. and cannot prove
they have been here for at least fourteen days. 230 Noncitizens who are subject to expedited removal are held in
mandatory detention until removal. When an immigration
officer invokes the expedited removal provision, and the
noncitizen requests asylum or otherwise indicates a fear of
persecution, the DHS officer is required to refer the individual to an asylum officer. 231 The asylum officer interviews
the noncitizen and performs a preliminary screening to
decide whether a credible fear of persecution exists. 232 All
noncitizens subject to this procedure must be detained
pending a credible fear determination or, if no credible fear
is found, until removal. 233 Asylum-seekers who are found
to have a credible fear of persecution or torture are detained
pending a determination on their case but may be released
on “parole” on a case by case basis. 234

2. Apprehension and Detention of Noncitizens
The apprehension and detention of noncitizens is addressed
in 8 U.S.C § 1226. These provisions state that the Attorney
General has the authority to arrest, detain, parole, and
release on bond of at least $1,500 a noncitizen who is
awaiting a court decision regarding his or her removal

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

21

from the U.S. 235 The Attorney General is also authorized to
revoke bond or conditional parole and detain the noncitizen
at any time. 236
The Attorney General must detain a noncitizen for certain
crimes which would make a noncitizen inadmissible into or
deportable from the U.S. 237 These categories include crimes
involving moral turpitude for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year, 238 multiple crimes involving moral
turpitude not arising out of a single scheme, 239 an aggravated felony, 240 crimes involving a controlled substance,
241 certain firearm offenses, 242 other miscellaneous crimes,
243 and crimes related to terrorism. 244 This mandatory detention provision extends to any person who is barred from
admission for criminal or national security reasons. 245
Noncitizens subject to mandatory detention may be released
if the release is necessary to provide protection to a witness,
immediate relative or a close associate of the witness, or a
person who is cooperating in an investigation and if the
released noncitizen does not “pose a danger to the safety of
other persons or of property and is likely to appear for any
scheduled proceeding.” 246 The Attorney General’s judgment
as to the detention of noncitizens under this section is not
subject to review by any court. 247

3. The Detention of Noncitizens Ordered Removed
The provision addressing the detention and removal of
noncitizens after they are ordered removed is contained in
8 U.S.C. § 1231. After noncitizens have been issued a final
order of removal, they are subject to mandatory detention.
248 If they are not removed within the ninety-day removal
period, they may be released under supervision. 249
Noncitizens who are convicted of crimes must complete
the term of imprisonment before removal from the U.S. 250
Noncitizens whose crime was nonviolent may be removed
prior to the expiration of the term of imprisonment should
such removal be in the best interest of the U.S. or in the best
interest of the state in which the conviction was found. 251
The Attorney General “shall arrange or appropriate places of
detention” for noncitizens “pending removal or a decision
on removal.” 252 Prior to the construction of new detention
facilities for noncitizens pending removal or a decision on
removal, the Commissioner shall “consider the availability
for purchase or lease of any existing prison, jail, detention
center, or other comparable facility.” 253

d. ICE Detention Standards
ICE uses Performance-Based National Detention Standards
(PBNDS) as guidelines for immigration detention centers.
ICE revised its PBNDS in 2011 to reflect “ICE’s ongoing
effort to tailor the conditions of immigration detention to
22

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

its unique purpose while maintaining a safe and secure detention environment for staff and detained immigrants, and
they apply to facilities at which ICE detained immigrants
are held.” 254 These standards are not enforceable or legally
binding, but rather are suggested guidelines. 255 Additionally, some detention facilities follow the earlier versions of the
detention standards. 256 This section discusses those standards most relevant to this report based on findings about
the conditions of the Stewart and Irwin detention facilities
in Georgia.

i. Food Service
ICE’s Food Service 2011 PBNDS are intended to provide
detained immigrants “a nutritionally balanced diet that is
prepared and presented in a sanitary and hygienic food service operation.” 257 The Food Service PBNDS further states
that detained immigrants are to be provided clean drinking
water and fed three meals per day, two of which should
be hot meals. 258 However, variations may be allowed in
observance of religious and civic holidays so long as “basic
nutritional goals are met.” 259 Further, all detention facilities
are required to provide detained immigrants who request a
special diet for religious reasons a “reasonable and equitable
opportunity to observe their religious dietary practice, within the constraints of budget limitations and the security and
orderly running of the facility.” 260 Specifically, the “common fare” program has been implemented to accommodate
detained immigrants during specific religious holidays such
as Ramadan, Passover, and Lent. 261
Generally, the common fare program is followed by the
staff at the Stewart and Irwin detention centers. However,
detained immigrants have reported several issues related to
religious meals. For example, detained immigrants at Stewart report requesting vegan or vegetarian diets for religious
reasons, but nothing is ever done to accommodate them.
One male detained immigrant from Nepal notes, “I requested vegetarian meals but I have not received them. I have
special dietary restrictions because of my religion. I spend
fifteen dollars per week buying food from commissary.” 262
Additionally, the 2011 PBNDS states that detained
immigrants with certain medical conditions such as diabetes
shall be prescribed an appropriate special diet to meet their
needs. 263 Special diets are to be authorized by the clinical
director and implemented by the next business day and
reviewed in ninety day increments. 264 Despite having these
standards in place, many detained immigrants at Stewart
report having inadequate diets for their medical needs. As a
male detained immigrant from Somalia notes:
I have a medical condition requiring a dietary
restriction. However, I still receive the same food

as everyone else except without dessert. It is not an
appropriate diet for my medical condition. They say
they will do things, but they just give you a paper
to fill out, and nothing changes. The store sells food,
but it is extremely expensive. My family sends me
money to buy extra food. The store is for profit and
exploits the situation. 265
Similarly, another male detained immigrant from Mexico
reported being diagnosed with diabetes. In response, he
receives a fruit cup with his meals, but he is still fed the same
food as everyone else, which is high in the proportion of
potatoes, white rice, and bread. 266

ii. Telephone Access
ICE’s 2011 PBNDS requires that detained immigrants have
reasonable and equitable access to telephones during waking
hours. 267 This includes access to international telephone
service, inter-facility calls to immediate family members in
other detention centers, and free calls to government offices
related to the immigration and legal service providers. 268
The PBNDS standards also direct the facilities to ensure
that indigent persons (those who have less than $15 in their
account for ten days) be “afforded the same telephone access
and privileges as other detained immigrants.” 269 However, several detained immigrants report not knowing that
they should be granted free access to phones. Additionally,
detained immigrants at both locations report paying five
dollars for fifteen minutes of phone time. Many detained
immigrants report having to spend up to forty dollars per
week in order to call their families.

“
	

Additionally, “All [ICE/ERO] field offices are responsible for
ensuring facilities which house ICE detained immigrants
under their jurisdiction are provided with current pro bono
legal service information.” 271 Many detained immigrants at
Stewart and Irwin report having knowledge of the pro bono
list of legal service providers at their facilities. However, several detained immigrants at both locations have expressed
that the attorneys on the list require them to pay; thus,
leaving many of the detained immigrants without counsel
because they cannot afford it.
ICE detention facilities are also required to have telephone
monitoring policies. Specifically, detained immigrants
should be notified via a recorded message, within the
detained immigrant handbook, and during each monitored
telephone that their conversation is recorded. 272 The 2011
PBNDS also requires that a detained immigrant’s calls to
court, to legal representatives, or for the purposes of obtaining legal representation shall not be monitored without
a court order. 273 Moreover, detained immigrants’ calls to
legal representatives should be in private and not limited
in number or to a duration less than twenty minutes. 274
Again, several detained immigrants at Stewart and Irwin
have expressed that their calls to their attorneys are made
out in the open and often detention staff is close by listening
to the conversation.

iii. Visitation with legal counsel
The 2011 PBNDS visitation standards require ICE detention facilities to provide visitation rules and information to
the public in written and telephonic form, as well as in the
detained immigrant handbook or supplement that is given

I have only used the phone one time to make a call.

I received two minutes for free when I first arrived at the Irwin detention
center. If I want to make a call now I would have to pay, but I do not
have any money except the one dollar a day I make from cleaning. 270
— A detained immigrant from Mexico describes her experience with
phones at Irwin

“

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

23

to each detained immigrant. 275 The facility should provide
notification of procedures for legal visitations. 276 Additionally, legal visitors may be required to present appropriate
identification, such as a Bar card, and may be subject to a
limited search. 277 Moreover, legal visitors are not required
to have the A-number nor the Form G-28 as a prerequisite
for entry. 278 Each facility must permit legal visitations every
day of the week, including on holidays, for at least eight
hours each day on weekdays, and four hours each day on
weekends and holidays. 279 Visitation rights may not be limited for detained immigrants who are being disciplined. 280
The 2011 PBNDS further provides that detained immigrants
may meet privately with their legal representatives or assistants. 281 Lastly, documents given to a detained immigrant
during a visit with a legal representative are to be inspected,
but not read. 282
Despite having these standards in place, attorneys and their
staff still face difficulty when attempting to visit their clients.
Amanda Parris, legal intern at Project South, and occasionally a legal assistant for the attorneys during the visits, recalls
her experience when trying to visit a detained immigrant at
Stewart as follows:
This Muslim man was in high security. The first
time I came to interview him only an attorney was
allowed to see him. No legal assistants allowed.
Myself and a pro bono attorney tried to visit him

24

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

a second time and we were refused. After driving
three hours, then waiting in the waiting area for
two hours, the assistant warden and another man
came down to ask us questions about who we were
and why we were there and whether we were his
attorneys for his immigration case, etc. They said
we could not visit him because ICE did not know
about the request in advance. However, the guard
told us, before and after speaking to the assistant
warden, that she gave our fax to ICE the day before
and that everyone knew we were coming to see him.
We were delayed during both visits – and during
the second visit we could not see him at all. He
was in maximum security and is still not allowed
to receive visitors. He has not committed or been
charged with a crime. He does not know why he is
in maximum security. 283

iv. Access to Legal Materials
ICE’s 2011 PBNDS mandates that each facility provide an
equipped law library with appropriate conditions including a
well-lit room, isolated from noisy areas, and large enough to
provide access to all detained immigrants who request to use
it. 284 The law library should be accessible to each detained
immigrant for at least five hours per week. 285 However,
several detained immigrants at Irwin stated that they have
made requests to visit the law library but that their requests

PHOTO: STEVE PAVEY

were ignored. Some reported not knowing how to access the
library at all. At Stewart, detained immigrants stated that
generally if they requested access to the library they would
be taken there.
In addition to allowing library access, each facility should
have a library coordinator who is responsible for ensuring
that the library has up to date legal materials and other
supplies necessary to allow detained immigrants to prepare
for legal proceedings. 286 Detained immigrants at both
Stewart and Irwin report having inadequate legal materials.
At Stewart, many of the detained immigrants expressed that
the law library was not useful because all of the materials
were in English and they cannot read English. At Irwin and
Stewart, detained immigrants reported that they do not
have access to the internet. They are afforded access to “bare
bones” outdated Lexis Nexis materials on the computers, but
several detained immigrants stated they do not know how
to use Lexis Nexis and no one will show them. Additionally, according to the 2011 PBNDS, if a detained immigrant
requires legal material that is not available in the law library,
he or she may make a written request to the facility law
library coordinator, who informs the Field Officer. 287 If a
request is denied, then a written explanation is required. 288
According to the PBNDS, facilities are encouraged to allow
outside programs to train detained immigrants to help other
detained individual to access legal materials. 289 Unrepresented detained immigrants who have limited English-proficiency or have disabilities and wish to put forth a legal claim,
and who state they have difficulty with the legal materials,
must be provided further assistance beyond the English law
books. 290 Even with this requirement in place, detained
immigrants at Stewart and Irwin report not having access to
legal materials in a language they can understand.

“
	

There is a law
library. The staff brings
me there every three days.

Most of the books are in English. The
materials are outdated. Most of the
materials I cannot understand because
they are in English. I am not able to get
assistance when I need it. I don’t know
if there are computers or typewriters.
To print, there is an application. It is
usually granted, but it takes them
one day to respond. 291

— A male detained immigrant
from China at Stewart

“

v. Conclusion
This section has described the legal standards governing
the detention of immigrants that have been derived from
various bodies of law. Case law, statutes, and DHS guidance
provide the standards for immigration detention. Despite
these safeguards, the evidence presented in the following
sections of this report will show the severe non-compliance
of these standards at Georgia’s Stewart and Irwin detention
centers.

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

25

VI. FINDINGS: GEORGIA’S TWO LARGEST
IMMIGRATION DETENTION FACILITIES
a. Introduction

b. Stewart Detention Center

There are four facilities in Georgia that currently house
detained immigrants: Atlanta City Detention Center
(ACDC), Irwin County Detention Center (Irwin), Stewart
Detention Center (Stewart), and Folkston ICE Processing
Center. 292 Folkston ICE Processing Center is a brand new
detention facility that began housing immigrants in
January 2017. 293 Folkston is a GEO Group facility that has
contracted with ICE to house immigrants right next to the
D. Ray James Correctional Complex. 294 Stewart and Irwin
are two of the largest detention centers in the U.S.; Stewart
is the second largest in the country. 295 While ACDC is
run by the city of Atlanta, Stewart, Irwin, and the Folkston
ICE Processing Center are private facilities, contracted by
the federal government. 296 Stewart is run by the Corporate
Corporation of America (CCA), the first and largest
prison corporation in the country. 297 CCA is also one
of the largest contributors to the American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization that lobbies
for bills that represent ALEC’s interests, to be passed. 298
CCA has spent tens of millions of dollars, pushing bills
ALEC has lobbied for on CCA’s behalf. 299 For
example, CCA has advocated on behalf of ALEC for
the “three-strikes” law, which incarcerates individuals for
life if they have committed any three felonies, as well as
lobbying for bills that require prisons to have a minimum
population. 300 The perverse incentives created by this
system of requiring individuals to be incarcerated,
sometimes for life, in private for-profit prisons has led
to significant declines in the quality of life for the
detained immigrants forced to live in these facilities.

Stewart, run by Warden Bill Spivey, is operated and staffed
by CCA, a private for-profit corporation that contracts out
food and phone services to other for-profit corporations. 301
The Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) between
ICE and Stewart County was signed in July 2006, and included an agreement to pay $54.25 per day for each detained
immigrant. 302 Stewart contains 1,752 male-only beds. 303 If
all beds are full, based on their initial 2006 contract, Stewart
receives $95,046 per day, or $34,691,790 per year. This
amount does not include the $7,500,000 increase granted in
March 2008, 304 nor the $3,498,400 increase granted in May
2008, nor does it include any unknown increases to the per
day per inmate funding. 305 Thus, detaining human beings
in this civil detention center is a very profitable business.

The following findings are based on interviews with
detained immigrants at the Stewart Detention Center
and at the Irwin County Detention Center completed
over the course of twelve months from April 2016 to
March 2017. These findings also reflect interviews
conducted by Alterna with individuals who were
previously detained at Irwin or Stewart, but who had
been deported to Guatemala at the time of their
interview.

Stewart is located in Lumpkin, Georgia, which is more than
two and a half hours south of Atlanta. 306 The remoteness
of this location cuts detained immigrants off from legal
counsel and family members, transportation, and hotel
accommodations. Detained immigrants report having very
few visits from family or legal aid due to the remoteness of
this location. A large percentage of the population has been
transferred to Stewart from other states, which makes family
and attorney visits particularly difficult. Many detained
immigrants report that they have never received visits from
family due to the distance, and some have even told their

“

There is a significant lack of
lodging in the Stewart area,
making it very difficult to spend more
than a day there, after making the very
long trip. This makes it very difficult
for me to meet with a client prior to
their initial hearing, if they are
detained at Stewart. 307

— An attorney who frequents
Stewart
26

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

“

“
	

I have been detained at Stewart for nearly two years.

Last year, my family came but it is too far for only a one-hour visit. I told my family to
stop visiting me. I told them not to worry. I didn’t want them wasting time and money
for only an hour. For people to visit, they must have an ID or passport to get inside.
Undocumented family members cannot visit us here. I miss my family. 308
— A detained immigrant from recalls his experience at Stewart

“
	

“

I am twenty-five years old now. I fled Somalia when I

was seventeen because of the horrific violence. My family was separated in the process.
My father and I traveled down to South Africa, but I have no idea where the rest of my
family is. Then, my father died in South Africa. Now I am all alone. I traveled to
America for asylum, but I had no idea I would be detained. I didn’t think they would
detain asylum-seekers. I just asked to apply for asylum and I didn’t know I would be
imprisoned. I was hospitalized in South Africa because I was tortured. I take medication
now for the trauma. But, I have no hope of asylum now that I was transferred to Stewart.
Stewart is just a deportation center. This is not a place where you can win asylum. 310
— Mohammed Ahmed Duale, detained at Stewart

“

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

27

family to stop visiting because the time and cost of traveling
is a burden, especially when visiting time is so restricted.

i. Due Process
Detained immigrants at Stewart go to immigration hearings
at the Stewart immigration court, which has the highest rate
of deportation out of any detention center in the country.
309 Immigrants detained at Stewart are aware of the facility’s
reputation.
Both attorneys and detained immigrants complain that
the immigration judges at the Stewart immigration court
routinely deny bond, or set bond at an amount much too
high for a detained person to conceivably pay, forcing these
immigrants to stay at Stewart for prolonged periods of time.
Even asylum-seekers with severe medical conditions have
been denied bond. One detained immigrant notes, “The
judge granted me bond, but it was $10,000 and I couldn’t pay
it. I’ve already spent that much on lawyers trying to help me,
but they haven’t helped.” 311 Additionally, some detained
immigrants report waiting months after being transferred
to Stewart before they were able to see a judge. One male
detained immigrant from Palestine recalls his experience
with the Stewart immigration court as follows:
I was not informed that I have the right to an attorney. I was only able to make a phone call after a
couple of days had passed. I contacted the consulate
but did not receive assistance. ICE officers coerced
me into signing a stipulated order of removal. I feel
that I was tricked because my English is not very
good. I was not informed that I was eligible for a
bond hearing. 312
The administrative proceedings, both in the Stewart facility
and the Stewart immigration court, must be questioned.
Notably, at least one U.S. citizen has been detained and
deported from Stewart. 313 A male detained immigrant from
Nicaragua recalls:
105 days after being detained, I was about to speak
with a judge when an immigration officer told me
I needed to sign some forms before I could see the
judge. I didn’t know what it said, but it turns out I
was accepting all charges as stated. 314
Another detained immigrant who was interviewed after being deported to Guatemala stated that after his deportation
hearing he was told he would be deported in twelve days.
Instead, he was transferred to Stewart for another forty-five
days before being sent to Guatemala. 315

28

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

ii. Legal Access
Visits with attorneys and family members are difficult for the
men detained at Stewart. According to the PBNDS, non-legal visits are permitted once a week for an hour, though the
remote location limits the ability of many family members
to visit. 316 Sometimes, family members are also subject
to detention, so visiting Stewart places family members at
risk of being detained by ICE as well. This concern is not an
irrational one, as some of the detained immigrants at Stewart were apprehended while attempting to complete court
orders, often relying on false promises from ICE officers that
they will not be detained. Thus, some men are unable to see
their families throughout their detainment.
In addition to not having frequent visitation with family,
detained immigrants and attorneys have reported frequent
complications regarding legal visits. Although clients are
allowed to meet with their attorneys, they either have to
do so through glass, communicating through regularly
malfunctioning phones, or through video conferencing.
These options have not been satisfactory. For example, one
male detained immigrant from Mexico said, “On the few
occasions I’ve been able to meet with a lawyer, there is static
on the phone and the TV is on nearby. The conversation is
not private at all.” 317 Additionally, attorneys who frequent
Stewart report that translators are not available, nor are
they welcomed by the facility. Accordingly, it is incredibly difficult to communicate with one’s attorney in a loud
area without privacy while using a broken phone system,
especially without speaking the same language. Moreover,
detained immigrants may not schedule times to meet with
their attorneys. Instead, attorneys must call Stewart staff and
schedule a meeting in advance.
Furthermore, the issue of faxing in advance caused numerous issues for attorneys interviewing detained immigrants
for this report. At least twice, due to missing faxes or unexplained reasoning, our attorneys were unable to visit with
detained immigrants even after scheduling the visit ahead
of time. As a result of the arbitrary procedures, detained
immigrants report that they must communicate with their
lawyers through family members, raising several due process
and attorney-client privilege concerns.
Stewart has recently put in a video conferencing system
which has significantly improved the attorneys’ abilities to
communicate with clients, as they can do so remotely, and
without having to actually go to the facility or deal with
communications through glass and broken phones. 319 But
attorneys also report arbitrary rules and procedures that the
Stewart staff uses, which makes visiting their clients even
more difficult. Below are some of the attorney experiences
with the Stewart staff:

“
	

The staff do not seem to understand that the
clients detained at Stewart have a right to counsel.

The staff seem to arbitrarily make up or ignore policies to best serve the conveniences
of the facility. For example, even though detained immigrants have the right to meet
with their attorney at any time, the facility promulgates the idea that attorneys need
to fax a visitation request 24 hours prior to visiting the facility. For experienced
attorneys, this amounts to no more than a delay of an hour or so before the facility
is made to realize that it is violating a detainee’s right to counsel. For inexperienced
practitioners, this may result in the waste of an entire day’s drive as the facility
is not close to any metropolitan area. 318
— An attorney’s experience at Stewart

“

“
	

The woman working at the law library yells at
detainees like they are children. She screams at detainees.
She screams at detainees. Treats detainees very poorly. She is not helpful at all. Sometimes
I cancel my visit because the librarian is so rude and disrespectful. No help is available in the
law library. The librarian does not help. I cannot even ask her for help because she yells and is
disrespectful. The librarian tells detainees what they can do or use or where they can sit or
stand. Two computers. No internet. The librarian told me it is not my right to have copies;
referring to copies of my legal documents. I request access but it is up to the librarian.
She has discretion on scheduling appointments.

324

— A detained immigrant recalls his experience at Stewart

“

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

29

On more than one occasion I have been told by the
CCA staff that I had to refill out a request form because I used blue ink instead of black ink. It seems
like a pointless waste of time intended to make
attorney-client contact more challenging. 320
It seems clear that the staff at Stewart make an
active effort to keep attorneys from visiting their
clients. The delays in meeting with your client once
you get to the facility are long, and if there are any
visitation issues, you won’t be alerted until you
arrive at the facility. The guards at Stewart are
incredibly unprofessional, making scenes over
underwire in attorney bras, while still allowing
them in, eventually. The front security actively
tries to find issues with lawyer visitation. Once,
even after their supervisor had approved my
translator’s admittance, front staff denied my
translator admittance. 321
The staff has also asked me to do somewhat outrageous things. I’ve been told to leave my bra at home,
because it will set off the metal detector, been forced
to send a single tampon through the metal detector,
and been made to go put my phone in the car in the
rain because of a change in cell phone policy. 322
Delays are another concern regarding legal access at Stewart.
Detained immigrants report long delays in receiving mail,
often including legal documents required for court. Attorneys interviewing detained immigrants for this report sometimes waited for over two hours to visit immigrants in order
to only wait again in between interviews. Some attorneys
reported waiting for an hour or more between meetings with
immigrants without the ability to bring their cell phones,
food, or water into the detention center. Occasionally, our
attorneys had to forgo interviewing some immigrants altogether due to severe delays.
Notably, detained immigrants are not entitled to legal
representation under the Sixth Amendment, nor are they
required to be provided with an interpreter to explain the
legal proceedings affecting them. 323 Thus, some detained
immigrants rely entirely on the law library. The amount of
time many detained immigrants are able to spend in the law
library is extremely limited, both in number of times per
week and number of hours per visit. Additionally, printing
options are very restricted, allowing detained immigrants to
only print two or three pages at a time. Men reported having
no foreign language resources and no ability to search the
internet for articles, which is especially problematic for asylum-seekers who must provide supporting evidence to prove
a well-founded fear. For example, Mandarin speakers reported a complete inability to use anything at the law library

30

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

or interact with any facility staff, and other asylum-seekers
from areas of violent conflict were unable to scour the
internet for evidence of credible fear.
In addition to not having access to materials in a language
that the detained immigrants understand, immigrants at
Stewart have reported that the library staff refuse to help
them. Other individuals added that the library staff were
simply mean.
Together, these findings show severe limitations to legal
access at Stewart.

iii. Admissions
Upon admission to Stewart, detained immigrants are provided basic hygiene products and clothing. However, after
receiving the initial items, some immigrants reported having
their requests for additional toiletries, undergarments, and
toilet paper ignored. Detained immigrants also reported
extensive waiting periods when they requested new shoes or
clothing due to normal wear.
Additionally, while the PBNDS require handbooks to be
provided to detained immigrants upon admission to the facility, immigrants report not receiving them, or being given
one in a language they cannot understand. In one instance,
a male detained immigrant from Palestine, who speaks
Arabic, was given a handbook in Spanish. 325 Furthermore,
several detained immigrants recall being given handbooks
and seeing the material posted, but expressed that detention
staff do not follow the rules set forth in the handbook.

iv. Phones
Another common issue for detained immigrants is access to
functioning phones. The phones are not located in private
areas, and the facility charges prohibitively high phone fees.
Though it was not listed in their handbook, detained immigrants reported numbers as high as $5 per twelve minutes
for calling out-of-state or twenty-six minutes calling within
the state of Georgia. One detained immigrant, who was
interviewed in Guatemala after being deported, reported
paying $15 for just ten minutes of phone time. 326 Another immigrant from Palestine stated, “There is no privacy.
The phone calls are always monitored. Sometimes calls are
dropped. $2.50 for twenty minutes domestic and $5.70 for
twenty minutes international. I spend $70 a week on phone
calls.” 327
Several detained immigrants explained that, even though
they were constantly hungry, they refused to supplement
their diet with food from the commissary in order to save
what money they had to use the phone for a few minutes
a week. To contrast these prohibitively high phone rates

with the offensively low pay rate for detained immigrants
who work for the prison (generally $1 per day on weekdays,
and payment in the form of second portions of food on the
weekends), it may take a detained immigrant one full week
of work to pay for a few minutes on the phone. Furthermore,
detained immigrants have indicated that the phones sometimes disconnect, thus requiring them to pay again.

v. Housing
The conditions of Stewart are that of a prison; it is, indeed,
a former prison that houses detained immigrants. 328 The
immigrants are divided into three classification levels, which
affect uniform color, housing, and other privileges. Currently, detained immigrants report that there are about sixty
men in one unit who share a shower area with six showerheads, three toilets, and three urinals, which may be unsanitary or nonfunctional. The detained immigrants are the sole
persons in charge of cleaning the units’ bathrooms and, if
they receive payment, it is between $1–2 a day. During the
winter months, the men reported that everyone in the units
was given outdoor jackets to wear because it was so cold inside. On December 21, 2016, one detained immigrant from
Somalia reported, “It is very cold now back in the units. All
the men are wearing jackets, plus wrapping up in blankets.
And, we are all still cold.” 329 Overall, the hygiene situation,
unit temperature, and lights remaining on twenty-four hours
a day were frequently described as posing serious concerns.

vi. Food and Water
The food and water conditions reported by both detained
immigrants and attorneys were particularly concerning.
In addition to food being frequently reported as spoiled or

expired, foreign objects, such as hair, plastic, bugs, rocks,
a tooth, and mice, were reportedly found repeatedly in the
food. Detained immigrants also reported meat was rarely
served, and if it was, it was generally undercooked, burnt, or
rancid. A male detained immigrant from Honduras stated:
Once a week, we are given chicken. Stewart provides beef, but it is too disgusting for anyone to eat.
Once, for a whole week, we were fed beans that had
maggots growing in them. I did not notice until the
second day. I supplement my diet with food from
the commissary. I spend around twenty to thirty-five dollars a week at the commissary. 330
The length of time between meals was unpredictable and
often long without any snacks offered between meals. One
male detained immigrant from India explained, “They rush
us, but we are not animals. We cannot eat that fast every
meal every day.” 332 The daily meal schedule, as described by
many detained immigrants, leaves seven or more hours between lunch and dinner without food. If an individual needs
additional food, they must purchase it at the commissary.
Many detained immigrants reported having lost between ten
to seventy pounds during their detention at Stewart.
A different detained immigrant from Honduras expressed
his experience with the food at Stewart as follows:
The food is not good quality. There are lots of potatoes. The food looks like vomit. The undercooked
beef looks like monkey brains. There was a worm
in my food one time. You have to eat as fast as
you can. You can’t even talk. It is not enough time.
I do not have enough money to buy additional
food from the commissary. Commissary does not

“

The fo o d is rancid and I’ve lost
se venty p ounds since b eing here.
	

I found a worm in the ground beef once. On top of all of that, the
water smells like feces and the showers are covered in mold. 331
— A detained immigrant recalls his experience at Stewart

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

“
31

sell bottled water. Coffee is $4. The prices are too
expensive. 333
Another male detained immigrant from El Salvador stated:
They don’t feed us enough or with quality food. I
took a job in the kitchen to try to get more food, but
they do not allow kitchen workers to get extra food.
Once, someone took a cracker and the guards tried
to deny the whole kitchen staff food. I’ve lost ten
pounds since I’ve been here. 334
Detained immigrants were rushed to eat, given generally
between ten to fifteen minutes per meal, and if they reported inadequate or inedible food, they would be sent back
to get more without being granted more time to eat. Some
detained immigrants who were late to a meal were sent away
until the next meal, which may not be served for another
seven or more hours. There were no reports of fresh produce, not even available at the commissary. The men have
never been served fruit during their time in detention, with
the exception of a few immigrants who, as part of a special
medical diet, were offered a small fruit cup. Almost all foods
were reported to be potato-based, white rice, or bread. The
diet has created significant complications for immigrants
with medical conditions, especially stomach issues and
diabetes. Detained immigrants spent about $30–100 per
week on extra food at the commissary. As one male detained
immigrant from Pakistan reports:
Not enough food is given and detainees are not
allowed to share food. We are never served fruit.
Rotten potatoes, two to three times in the three
months since I have been at Stewart. I complain
about the potatoes all the time. Food is sometimes
undercooked. I have been served frozen pancakes.
No change in my diet despite high blood pressure
and cholesterol. I have suffered a stroke. We only
have ten minutes to eat. I buy fish in a can,
soup, etc. The prices are higher in here than on
the outside. I spend $20-30 per week on
commissary. 335
The need for food supplements from the commissary is not
only connected to the poor quality of the food, but also the
meal schedule. Dinner is usually served by about 4:30 p.m.,
which means most people are hungry again before bed and
have only two options: go to sleep hungry or buy food at
the commissary. One detained immigrant said, “The food is
not good and dinner is served at 4:30 p.m. so by 8:00 p.m.
or 9:00 p.m., I’m hungry again and have to buy food from
the commissary because I’m so hungry; like the phones,
commissary prices are much higher in comparison to the
amount detained immigrants can get paid if they choose to

32

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

work.” 336 Consequently, families and friends must supplement the detained immigrants’ finances to prevent their
loved ones from going hungry during months and years of
detention. This additional revenue stream for the facility is
incredibly burdensome to families and detained immigrants.
Finally, detained immigrants with dietary restrictions, some
due to medical needs such as diabetes, receive the same
meal as other immigrants, with the addition of a fruit cup
or minus a piece of cake. A male detained immigrant from
Mexico describes the accommodation of his medical condition as follows:
I was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with
diabetes. They never told me much about my condition, but now they give me a small fruit cup with
my food. 337
The water has been especially concerning. It has been described as green, non-potable, smelling of feces, or completely shut off. Detained immigrants are not provided with
enough undergarments or other clothing. They regularly
wash their clothes in their sinks rather than wait for it to be
laundered. Multiple detained immigrants reported that their
clothes become green when they clean their white garments
in the sink water. A male detained immigrant from Mexico
stated:
We have to wash our white clothes in the sink,
and when we do, the water turns the white clothes
green. We told the guards but nothing has been
done. 338
The disconcerting quality of the water has been reported by
attorneys as well. One attorney stated:
I was at Stewart visiting a client, and at some point,
I went to drink out of a drinking fountain. A nicer
guard motioned for me to not drink the water. Her
supervisor was there, so she had to be subtle, but
it was clear that she did not want me to drink the
water from the water fountain. 339
Some detained immigrants boil water in their cells before
they drink it. Individuals reported getting rashes from the
showers. A male detained immigrant from Mexico said,
“The shower water is green and anytime I drink any water, I
get headaches. I’ve lost about twenty pounds since I’ve been
here.” 340 Similarly, another man from Ecuador reported,
“For one week the water was brown with black specks.” 341
The lack of access to consistently clean water violates international human rights standards and PBNDS provisions.

vii. Hygiene
Hygiene is another area of concern. Hygiene kits are dispensed at intake and overall detained immigrants reported
that they received all the initial items such as clothing,
toothpaste, and soap. However, a few detained immigrants
stated that requesting additional hygiene products is a
difficult task. If their requests are not completely ignored, it
can take weeks before they receive replacement items. Many
detained immigrants reported dissatisfaction with the quality of the soap and explained that it caused their skin to break
out. Several men stated that they supplement these basic
necessities by purchasing them at the commissary at inflated
rates, particularly shampoo because it is not provided by the
facility. Furthermore, the toilet to person ratio is significantly higher than PBNDS requires. The combination of poor

“
	

food quality and quantity, lack of clean water, and unhygienic conditions creates an environment where bacteria
can flourish, causing detained immigrants to develop health
issues.

viii. Work
Detained immigrants at Stewart may engage in voluntary
work such as cleaning and preparing meals, but are paid far
below minimum wage. Depending on the position, a person
may earn between $1-4 per day or less at Stewart. However,
$4 a day is rare. Detained immigrants work in a variety of
positions that are necessary for the operation of the facility,
ranging from janitorial to administrative duties. 342 In terms
of payment, some detained immigrants engaged in the work
program reported that, although they are paid for their

The medical staff only gives out pain killers.

I had difficulty urinating, and my medical treatment was to drink more water. I have
been back to medical three times for this issue. There was a Chinese man in my unit
throwing up before dawn. It took two hours for medical to arrive. The Chinese man
still throws up. 350

— A male detained immigrant from El Salvador

“

PHOTO: STEVEN RUBIN

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

33

“
	

No; there is no
mental health service.
There is no therapy. They
only put people in
segregation when
someone is “mentally ill.”
— A male detained immigrant
from Somalia

ix. Religious Freedom

“

work on weekdays, they are compensated with extra food on
weekends instead of receiving monetary payment. The men
added that they do not have an option as far as accepting
food in lieu of payment. A male detained immigrant from
Mexico described his work experience below:
On weekends, in lieu of money, I get two pieces of
chicken for my work. I don’t think it’s fair. I have
to get money from family to pay for phone use,
hygiene products, and commissary food. 343
Another detained immigrant from Mexico expressed his
frustration with the work program:
I don’t think the work program is fair at all. I have
to work weekends for the payment of getting to eat
twice as much food, instead of actual payment.
The food is terrible. I’ve lost a lot of weight. I feel
depressed a lot and don’t go outside or participate
in activities. I don’t know if they have any mental
health services here. 344
For most detained immigrants, they must take any opportunity to earn money in order to purchase necessities at the
commissary or make phone calls. Many lose their previous
employment due to detention. Therefore, their only option
is to work for CCA at substandard wages. 345 These working
conditions call into serious question ethical boundaries as
detained immigrants work for very little, and are paid by
the private corporation that is benefiting from their work
instead of hiring regularly-paid employees. For example, one
immigrant from Mexico stated, “I work for $1 per day picking up garbage for the facility.” 346 Not only does this implicate employment and labor laws, but also the Thirteenth

34

Amendment, which does not allow slavery or indentured
servitude, except if it is being used for criminal punishment.
Again, immigration detention centers are supposed to be
civil.

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

Few religious services are provided by outside groups. Many
detained immigrants stated that they will conduct their
own services and prayers within their units when they are
allowed. However, they reported not being able to facilitate
prayer amongst immigrants from different units. Some
services are offered by different outside Christian volunteer
groups or individuals. Many non-Christians attend these
services because they do not have options for their own
religion.
Religious dietary meals are provided to detained immigrants, such as Kosher meals given to some Jewish immigrants. However, some detained immigrants reported having
religious dietary needs ignored, especially among religions
requiring vegetarianism. Also, numerous Muslims reported
that the guards told them that all the food served by the
facility was Halal. It was only later that the immigrants discovered that the food was not Halal. The men explained that
the religious meals lack nutrition, especially the vegetarian
meals. Hunger and lack of nutrition is a real deterrent to
practicing religious dietary requirements while in detention.
Some Muslim immigrants accepted the regular meal either
because they did not know how to request Halal, the wait
time was indefinite, or some felt bad for other immigrants
and therefore would give them their serving of non-Halal meat. This disregard for religious dietary practices is
evidenced by a male detained immigrant from Somalia who
requested Halal and at the time of the interview had been
waiting for three months without receiving a response. He
also noted that there are no special meals given to Muslims
for the religious holiday Eid. 347
Besides religious dietary conflicts, immigrants faced numerous others religious freedom issues. Several detained immigrants, especially Hindus and Muslims, noted an inability
to access religious texts. Muslims reported that their prayer
time was occasionally interrupted by the facility daily count
times. As with food, phone calls, and hygiene supplies, Muslims must buy prayer rugs from the commissary in order to
do their prayers. Fasting outside of major religious holidays
was not accepted by the facility. Accordingly, several immigrants fasting for religious reasons missed meals and were
not accommodated. Detained immigrants are not allowed
to avoid eating for any significant length of time, hence the
punishment of segregation and threat of force-feeding for
those who participate in hunger strikes.

These findings raise serious questions about religious freedom and compliance with U.S. statutes and the PBNDS on
religion.

profen, are dispensed when physical exams or other medical
care is more appropriate or medically required.

x. Medical Care
The medical unit is desperately understaffed, and sometimes
detained immigrants are sent long distances for off-site
medical treatment. There were no medical staff members
who spoke Spanish at the time of the preparation of the
report, thus limiting the ability for detained immigrants and
medical staff to communicate in a meaningful way. The staff
currently uses a phone translation service to communicate
with non-English speaking immigrants.
ICE specifically found Stewart’s medical care to be inadequate in 2012 349 and care continues to be inadequate.
ICE requires there to be a physical exam of every detained
immigrant within fourteen days of arrival. While most of the
detained immigrants reported receiving an initial check-up,
some report having medical conditions that have not been
adequately addressed.
Despite ICE requirements, it is highly concerning that many
detained immigrants claim that pain killers, often only ibu-

“
	

This method of proscribing only pain killers occurs if the
detained immigrant actually requires a cream or bandage, or
even for something as severe as broken bones. Furthermore,
one person reported that a pill was given to detained immigrants if they complained of hunger, and that pill would suppress their appetite. An immigrant from China said, “They
just dispense pain reliever no matter what our disease is. My
arm swelling continued for three months but they just give
me pain reliever.” 351 Similarly, a male detained immigrant
from Mexico describes his observations as follows:
Medical just gives pain pills for everything. My
roommate had a big one-inch bump on his leg. He
begged medical and ICE officers every day to take
him to a hospital. After two months, the bump had
grown to three inches and was severely infected.
He was left with a large sore and scar after he was
finally taken to a hospital and the bump was operated on. 352
Detained immigrants also report issues with the amount
of time it takes to receive medical care and see an actual

They dehumanize the detainees. The detainees are driven to be insane.

The detainees fall into depression. The detainees become sick and get ulcers – all of the things that
happen to a person when they are dehumanized. There is so much corruption in that place. It is all
about the money. I am Catholic but I worked very hard to help all the detainees including the Muslims.
I tried for a year to get Qurans. I was eventually able to get them for the Ramadan holiday from Texas.
It is true that it is nearly impossible for the immigrants to get a Quran when they make requests. Regarding
food, the Kosher meals cost more money. And, it is all about the money. The Chaplin interviews the
detainees for about thirty minutes on why they request special diets for religious reasons. If it for cultural
reasons, they will be denied. If it is for religious reasons, they might get it. The Kosher meals cost the
facility more money. But how do you decide if a person is doing something for religious reasons? How do
you decide it is only for cultural reasons? And, honestly, the guards are manipulative. The detainees are
simply not fed enough food. They are treated like sheep. There are many issues with religious special diets,
especially for Hindus and Muslims. I spent over two years working at Stewart. The turnover of officials at
Stewart made the ministry quite challenging and I am convinced that there was a lot of prejudice
against me as a Catholic. 348

— A chaplain who previously worked at Stewart
Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention

“
35

doctor. Several detained immigrants expressed that if they
miss the sign up for medical assistance in the morning they
are forced to wait until the following morning. A detained
immigrant from Honduras described the process:
If you need any actual medical assistance, you have
to sign up at 5 a.m. that morning, and if you’re late,
you have to wait until the next day. Major medical
needs take ten to fifteen days to address. 353
Additionally, another man from India stated that it can take
up to six months before detained immigrants see a doctor,
and that his last consultation with a doctor was conducted
by video conference. The lack of adequate medical care at
Stewart raises serious concerns that must be addressed by
ICE.

xi. Mental Health Care
According to most of the detained immigrants, the men do
not have access to a mental health doctor, and the mental health care staff that exists primarily handles suicide
risks, which are reportedly dealt with by placing the at-risk
individual in segregation. A couple of men report receiving
some type of mental health care. However, the vast majority
of immigrants were unaware of mental health services or too
afraid of being placed in segregation to approach the mental
health care staff with concerns.

“

	

I tried to kill myself at Stewart.
Stewart was horrible. My family
couldn’t visit me 356
— A male detained immigrant
from India

“

Of particular concern is the treatment of those suffering
serious mental afflictions, who are given pills and then
are placed in handcuffs and helmets and put in segregation, a practice discouraged by ICE, the DOJ, and human
rights standards. One person reported that other detained
immigrants were being heavily medicated and “kind of
just walking around in a fog.” Some detained immigrants
interviewed did not know of any mental health care options,
or only knew that detained immigrants on suicide watch
were placed in segregation. Many immigrants spoke about
how they felt depressed or had trauma from torture or other
36

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

incidents in their home countries. However, the men said
they were afraid to reach out for mental health for fear that
they would be taken away, heavily drugged, or placed in
segregation like others who made mental health requests in
the past. A detained immigrant from Guatemala added, “I
have no idea if there are mental health services here, nor do
I know how to file a grievance. 354
Several detained immigrants also expressed their concern
for others that they felt needed access to mental health
services. A male detained immigrant from Nepal expressed
his concern by stating, “Many detained immigrants here
have emotional issues and need more assistance.” 355

xii. Segregation
Moreover, much like a prison, there is an administrative and
disciplinary segregation section used to put detained immigrants in isolation for varying reasons (often punishment)
and for varying, sometimes arbitrary, lengths of time, which
range from twenty-four hours to multiple months. Some of
the reported reasons for segregation included not tucking in
one’s shirt, talking too much or complaining, arguing during
soccer matches, and participating in hunger strikes. One detained immigrant reported being put in segregation because
he asked for an extra bandage. He was told that he was being
disrespectful. Other detained immigrants have been put in
segregation due to lack of beds or filing grievances against
other detained immigrants.
Immigrants at Stewart report that the segregation unit is
used primarily for punishment, but also for those with mental health issues. According to ICE’s 2011 PBNDS, the maximum amount of time a detained immigrant may be put in
disciplinary segregation is thirty days. 357 In segregation, the
immigrants cannot tell if it is day or night. There is no access
to commissary or showers, and limited or prohibited access
to phones, medical attention, and recreation. The meals are
smaller, and multiple detained immigrants have complained
of being confined in segregation with no explanation and/
or by mistake. Also, detained immigrants who merely file
grievances report having been placed in segregation until
their hearing. Notably, grievances filed with DHS reportedly
get no responses.
One male detained immigrant from Nigeria, who suffers
from mental issues, explained,
“Segregation is like hell. It is total isolation.” 358
Detained immigrants report no difference between administrative or disciplinary segregation; both are considered to be
equally severe. When detained immigrants are placed in segregation, they are not allowed to shower or access the com-

missary, and each day they must choose between using the
phone and getting an hour of recreation time outside of their
small cell. Segregation cells have no bathroom. Detained
immigrants must request to use the bathroom every time
they need to use the restroom throughout their confinement
in segregation, after which they are handcuffed and taken
to the restroom in chains. A male detained immigrant from
Somalia describes his experience in segregation as follows:
I was put in segregation for four days because I
was on a hunger strike. There were about twenty
other Somali detainees in segregation for the hunger
strike. In segregation, I could not see outside and
did not know if it was day or night. I could see
the other detainees through a small window. The
guards will bring the phone through the window for
a detainee to use. The bathroom is located outside
of the cell. Detainees must request an officer to take
them to the bathroom. They are handcuffed and
brought to the bathroom. 359

“
	

Many detained immigrants reported spending at least a few
days to a week in segregation. Some men who were interviewed were held for multiple months in segregation and
others knew immigrants who had spent three to six months
in segregation. Several men reported being held in segregation for participating in hunger strikes, or they knew of
other detained immigrants who were held in segregation for
participating in the strikes. Detained immigrants explained
that there are only two forms of punishment: taking away
commissary (how they supplement meals) and going to segregation (where they cannot go to the commissary anyway).
Consequently, punishment at Stewart always involves being
hungry.

xiii. Staff and Administrative Issues
Serious concerns were raised regarding guard behavior,
both by detained immigrants and by attorneys. Detained
immigrants reported that the facility had some good officers,
some bad officers, and a few very bad officers. For example, one detained immigrant, a non-Muslim, reported that

I am married with children, but I have been here

for almost two years. I came here for asylum because I am a religious man and the Chinese police caught
me practicing my faith and participating in religious activities. I did not see an immigration judge until
at least five months into my detention. I was unable to communicate with my deportation officer. No one
speaks Mandarin. There are not even TV programs in our language. Others watch TV, but we cannot.
There are over sixty people in my dorm style unit. People from over ten countries in an overcrowded
living situation – there is fighting, miscommunication, and it’s loud. Only two of the showers work for
over sixty people. One time I was put in segregation because of a language or cultural misunderstanding.
In the shower, I tap someone on the shoulder to compliment them and they reported me for sexual
harassment. I didn’t know that it would be interpreted that way. I was put in segregation for a week.
And, we are not fed enough. I am always hungry and I have lost weight. I am supposed to be on a
special diet, but I do not know who to communicate that to. The water even tastes abnormal – it is
not good. I want to attend religious programs but I cannot understand them in English. There are no
interpreters here. I do not understand the facility rules because the handbook is in English.
The manager here hates Chinese people. 363
— A detained immigrant from China at Stewart

“

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

37

Muslim men complained about one guard who was repeatedly racist and Islamophobic towards them. The detained
immigrant reporting this situation agreed that the guard was
in fact racist and Islamophobic. He said the facility eventually fired the guard because the Muslim immigrants kept
complaining and participating in group protests. Another
detained immigrant, an asylum-seeker who was tortured
in South Africa, reported that one guard would frequently
threaten to deport him back to South Africa.
Detained immigrants have noted prejudice among the
guards, indicating that Spanish speaking guards were harassed by non-Spanish speaking guards for communicating
with detained immigrants in Spanish, and that most Spanish
speaking guards tended to disappear. This prejudice creates
an environment where people who cannot speak English are
extremely vulnerable, in that they are unable to articulate
their needs, and this makes them highly dependent on other
detained immigrants to communicate on their behalf. Many
of the detained immigrants expressed that if more guards
were present who spoke their language that would allow
them to communicate more effectively. A male detained
immigrant from Mexico expressed his feelings about the
subject as follows:
I wish more of the guards could speak Spanish so
that I could communicate. There was one officer
who could, but then the other officers would get
mad at him if he spoke in Spanish to us. I haven’t
seen him in weeks. 360
Another man from Guatemala explained:
The language barrier is a real problem here. The
staff doesn’t understand when you need something
from them, and if you try to get a detainee to help
communicate for you, they still won’t get what you
need. The guards treat detained immigrants very
disrespectfully and do not communicate the rules
to Spanish speakers, but yell if we do not comply
exactly. 361
Furthermore, many immigrants do not speak English or
Spanish. Some men, like Mohammed Ahmed Duale, speak
Somali and interpret for those from Somalia who do not
speak English. Mohammed is an unofficial translator for
other immigrants and the guards. Sometimes it is a bit
frustrating for Mohammed because it is almost like a job
except he is not compensated. But, he wants to help other
detained immigrants. Other men depend on him to translate
communications with guards, make requests, and file complaints. However, not all immigrant groups have members
who provide translation services. Those who do not speak
English or Spanish face considerable problems. For exam-

38

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

ple, Mohammed expressed concern for the population of
Chinese immigrants being held at Stewart:
The Chinese immigrants have it very hard here.
They have to use hand signs to communicate with
anyone and everyone. The staff can’t communicate
with them at all. There are no interpreters for them
and no detainees who can interpret for them. They
can’t express themselves, make requests, or complain. I don’t know if they are okay. 362
Several Chinese and non-Chinese immigrants have remarked about how the Chinese men are treated worse because they cannot communicate. Another Chinese detained
immigrant said:
“The staff ’s attitude towards Chinese immigrants is
very bad and rude. People who can speak English
are treated better. Chinese people are treated worse,
maybe because we cannot speak English. If I could
change anything at the facility, I would want them
to treat the Chinese people better, and change the
food – it’s horrible.” 364
The lack of ability to communicate creates serious complications regarding discipline and medical care. For example,
another Chinese detained immigrant shared his story as
follows:
When I was detained at the border, I was barely
fed any food for five days. I was so hungry. I came
here for asylum because I am Christian. This is the
third detention center that I have been held in since
I was detained. They told me I will be deported next
year sometime. I’ve been at Stewart for almost two
years. They told me I might be here for almost three
years before they deport me back to China. It is cold
here. The lights are always on, and there is just too
many people staying inside one unit. There were no
Chinese books here when I arrived. Barely anything
is in Mandarin so I just sleep a lot. One time, I
broke my leg and I waited for at least two hours
before seeing a doctor. Then, I waited for a month
before being taken to hospital to get x-rays. None of
the medical staff spoke my language, so I had to use
a phone interpreter. The staff should treat us fairly,
but they do not. They treat English speakers much
better. I was not provided with a facility handbook
and I cannot understand the rules. I do not know
how to make a complaint or file a grievance. Once,
I was in a dispute with another immigrant because
he stepped on my bed with his shoes on in order
to get to the top bunk. And, I was disciplined even
though I was not at fault because I cannot speak

English and I could not express myself. I just want
to get out of this place. 365
Other Chinese detained immigrants reported similar issues
relating to untreated medical problems and unfair disciplinary action because of their inability to communicate
with any of the staff. There were also reports of staff using
racial slurs directed at the Chinese men. Other detained
immigrants expressed sympathy for the Chinese immigrants
who they also believe are not treated fairly.

xiv. Hunger Strikes
Frustrated by the conditions of detention, groups of detained immigrants have gone on several hunger strikes at
Stewart in recent years. For example, in the summer of 2014,
dozens of detained immigrants at Stewart went on a hunger
strike. 366 In response, detention center staff put the
facility on a twenty-four hour lock down, threatened to
force-feed participants, and used pepper spray on some
men. 367 Again, fed up with the conditions of the facility,
including being locked-up for twenty-three hours a day,
detained immigrants organized a protest in September 2015.
368 This time, the detention center staff responded by using
rubber bullets or paint balls and placed protesters in segregation. 369 Last year, on April 17, 2016, detained immigrant
Alaa Yasin from Palestine went on a prolonged hunger strike
to protest his unlawful detention. 370 Mr. Yasin argued that
he should have been released because his removal was not
reasonably foreseeable. 371 Thus, keeping him in detention
violates Supreme Court precedent. In response to his hunger
strike, ICE unsuccessfully attempted to get a court order to
force-feed him and informed him that he would be placed
in solitary confinement. 372 Despite the protests and hunger
strikes by detained immigrants in recent years, little has
been done to remedy the conditions that led to the protests
in the first place. Detained immigrants still feel the need to
protest. For example, one detained immigrant reported the
following:
I am going on a hunger strike today. My wife can
no longer afford school in Ghana without my help.
My son is devastated that he cannot continue with
his education. Today, he told me he is planning to
kill himself. My child wants to kill himself. I am
begging to be deported or get work release. I must
help him. I need to help my family. I cannot stand
being detained any longer. I cannot sleep anymore.
I am so stressed. I constantly worry about my wife
and children. I cry at night. 373

Information Act request by The Verge, more than two dozen
detained immigrants were placed in solitary confinement
after going on a hunger strike. 374 These detained immigrants were merely demanding access to their deportation
officers and refused to eat unless seen by ICE. Even before
they could actually miss a meal, they were locked in solitary confinement. 375 There have been multiple occasions
when ICE has been accused of using solitary confinement
as a means of retaliation against hunger strikes. 376 A male
detained immigrant from India described the treatment of
the men who go on hunger strikes as follows:
Hunger strikes happen all the time. People get sent
to SHU (segregation) for doing this. Staff usually
responds quickly to hunger strikes since they are
afraid of the detainee getting hurt, since they would
have to report that to ICE. 377
Azadeh Shahshahani, Legal and Advocacy Director with
Project South, said, “These documents confirm what we’ve
been hearing in terms of immediate and really brutal crackdown by using solitary as a means of deterring the hunger
strikes and almost as a punishment.” 378 Solitary confinement is a violation of basic human rights and amounts to
psychological torture. 379
Another large hunger strike took place around Thanksgiving
in 2016. Many immigrants who had been in detention for
a year, two years, or more were exasperated by their indefinite detention. Sadam Hussein Ali, a twenty-four-year-old
asylum-seeker from Somalia, reported the following:
The staff put me in segregation for several days
because I participated in the hunger strike that
happened around Thanksgiving. They also fired me
from my kitchen job for participating in the strike.
About twenty other Somali detainees were put in
segregation. In segregation, I couldn’t see outside.
I lost track of whether it was day or night. I had to
request to use the bathroom every time; then I was
chained; and then a guard would walk me to the
bathroom in chains. I participated in the hunger
strike because we have been detained for far too
long. The nurses actually threatened to force-feed all
of us on the hunger strike. 380
The use of segregation as a form of punishment for
engaging in a peaceful protest violates basic human
rights. By the same token, force-feeding or the threat to
force-feed is also a violation of basic human rights and
international law.

Particularly concerning is the use of solitary confinement as
a means to punish the detained immigrants who go on hunger strikes. Per the records obtained through a Freedom of

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

39

c. Irwin County Detention Center
Located in Ocilla, Georgia, the Irwin County Detention
Center 381 is another for-profit detention facility like Stewart.
The facility is located around three hours away from Atlanta,
Georgia. Irwin is owned by Irwin County but currently run
by LaSalle Corrections. 382 In 2010, the Irwin County Jail
contracted with ICE for the Irwin detention center to house
detained immigrants. 383 According to the website, Irwin’s
capacity is 1,201 individuals. 384 Unlike Stewart, the Irwin
detention center houses both male and female detained
immigrants. Additionally, Irwin’s staff is provided by LaSalle
Corrections. 385 LaSalle Corrections provides operations
management services to various detention facilities. 386

i. Due Process
Similar to Stewart, the geographic location of the detention center poses significant problems for family members
and attorneys with clients detained at Irwin. Many of the
immigrants currently detained at Irwin were transferred
from Texas, the Carolinas, Stewart, or ACDC. Out-of-state
transfers often end attorney-client relationships. This result
is especially true for those detained immigrants who have
been transferred to Irwin, but have an attorney who is not
based in Atlanta. Some immigration judges assigned to immigrants at Irwin do not allow telephonic attorney appearances in court, which makes legal representation even more
difficult for those detained at Irwin. 387
The geographical setting is not only problematic for attorneys, but it also makes it almost impossible for some
detained immigrants to see their families. Detained immigrants report that there are mothers who are separated from
dependent children for prolonged periods of time. For the
short time that the families may be allowed to visit, they
must do so separated by glass and communicating through
unreliable phones. 388 Female immigrants reported that
there was a pregnant woman in detention at Irwin, but they
did not know what happened to her or her child.
In addition to the geographical obstacles, detained immigrants report serious issues regarding the immigration court.
Some detained immigrants report being forced to sign documents without speaking to an attorney. Others stated that it
took months before they had an initial appearance before a
judge. A male detained immigrant from Cameroon knew a
man who was told that he would be released if he just signed
a stipulated order of removal. He also heard that ICE would
show fake travel documents as part of its strategy. 389 A male
detained immigrant from Guatemala reported that he had
not seen his deportation officer for his first three months
of detention. Ultimately, he did not have enough time to
communicate with the officer about his needs and desire to
40

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

fight his case. 390 Another male detained immigrant from
Guatemala did not see his detention officer at all. 391
Furthermore, another male detained immigrant from Ghana
was given ten days to find an attorney. He could not find
an attorney because all of them required a fee that he could
not afford. 392 On one occasion, a male immigrant from
Honduras did not see a judge for sixty days after his arrest in
2016. 393
It is also concerning that detained immigrants report not
being informed about their rights. One female from El Salvador reported the following:
I was notified of pro bono services. I hired two of
the pro bono attorneys but they never showed up
to the hearings so then I was forced to get a private
attorney since the judge said he would punish me
if I didn’t get an attorney. My father found me an
attorney but he wasn’t able to make it to the last
hearing. I mostly communicate with my attorney
through my family. 395
The court at Irwin is also notorious for issuing very high
bonds. Several detained immigrants recall not being able to
afford bond because it was too high. Some individuals were
denied bond entirely. One detained immigrant from Nigeria
with serious untreated medical issues said:

Detained immigrants report being placed
in segregation for the first twenty-four to
forty-eight hours of their arrival at Irwin,
while space is made for them in the
general population. Some immigrants
reported waiting up to a week in solitary
confinement.

I want bond. I need bond. They are not treating
my medical condition. I need to leave to receive
surgery. I am in so much pain. I don’t understand
why they will not let me leave. 396
Adding to the problem, several detained immigrants who
request legal representation are denied access to pro bono
legal services or other legal resources as required by the
PBNDS. Further, in the event a detained immigrant is
able to obtain a list of attorneys, some have reported

“
	

I did not see the immigration judge until I applied

for bond but it was denied three times. During the last hearing I had on September 15, 2015, the
judge lost all the paperwork and sent me back here to wait for another hearing. One time, an ICE
agent at Stewart told me that I should sign the deportation paper because they will not leave
anyone in America. I heard from another person that he was pressured to sign, but he
eventually said no. 394

— An immigrant from Mexico

“

that the services listed as pro bono are not actually free. This
is evidenced in an experience by a male detained
immigrant from Nigeria who called the free or reduced-fee
legal support attorneys that were on a list given to him by
the detention center, but none of them would work for free.
397 Lack of access to legal counsel is particularly problematic
because it is crucial for an immigrant to understand what
is taking place during any legal proceeding because the
consequences may be a final order of removal. Accordingly,
a person must be able to communicate critical information
that may influence the decision of the immigration judge.
Yet, without an attorney, many immigrants are unable to
make their voice heard.

An attorney who visited his client at Irwin reported the
following:

ii. Legal Access

Even more troubling is the denial of free calls to legal counsel. A male detained immigrant from El Salvador reported
the following:

In addition to the challenges of obtaining legal representation, detained immigrants at Irwin do not have sufficient
access to adequate legal materials and visitations with their
attorneys are impermissibly impaired. PBNDS recognizes
the importance of allowing detained immigrants access to
legal information. These standards specify that organizations should be permitted to distribute legal information in
response to legal inquiries, and that detained immigrants
must have access to information and materials provided by
legal groups upon request. However, numerous detained
immigrants at Irwin reported not having adequate access to
this legal information.
Further, visitation conditions significantly impair the
attorney-client relationship. Attorney visits are no-contact,
and the communication is done via telephone through a
glass partition. Attorneys and detained immigrants reported
major difficulties in their ability to hear each other without
yelling inside the interview rooms, which raises major concerns about attorney-client privilege. As an alternative, the
attorneys are forced to choose public visitation, which again
is a threat to attorney-client privilege.

After waiting over an hour to visit with a client, we
were taken to a visitation room in which we could
not hear one another. We asked the guards for an
alternative visiting situation, but they told us that
contact visits weren’t allowed so the only other
option was the regular visitation area that does not
afford any privacy. We were forced to choose the
public visitation area because even while shouting,
my client and I were unable to hear each other in
the attorney client visitation room. 398

I requested free legal calls non-stop but was refused.
My lawyer attempted to schedule a conference call
with me a week before my court date but he was
denied. 399
Additionally, the handbook indicates that detained immigrants are to have access to the law library during library
hours, which are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. 400 Detained immigrants report a different experience.
Many female immigrants expressed that they were not informed by detention center staff that a law library even existed. They were eventually told by other detained immigrants,
and still no one has told them how to seek access to the law
library. A female detained immigrant from Mexico said:
There is a law library, but the staff has not told us
how we can use it. I know about it because I saw it
when I went to court- it is across from the court. I
think, one must make a request but I am afraid to
since the staff is not responsive. 401
Further, many detained immigrants expressed that they
have a difficult time actually accessing the library and usable

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

41

legal materials. Detained immigrants expressed that the
procedure required to request access to the law library is
cumbersome. They must fill out request forms that are only
provided in English and Spanish. This makes it difficult for
detained immigrants who speak other languages to request
access to the library. Moreover, detained immigrants report
that requests to access the law library are often ignored.
Those that are not ignored take weeks to be approved for a
scheduled visit to the law library. Even when they are scheduled, detained immigrants reported that only two people
are allowed to visit the library at the same time. For a facility
of this size, the limit seems considerably disproportionate
to the need of the detained population. Some detained
immigrants report being refused access to the law library
altogether. For example, a male detained immigrant from
Cameroon was denied access to the law library while he was
in segregation. Others reported similar restrictions. Another
male detained immigrant from Cameroon reported:
One cannot access the library unless you have an
attorney phone call. One woman is responsible for
the library, copies, attorney phone calls, everything.
She is overworked and always extremely busy. 402
Even more troubling is the inadequate legal materials
provided in the library. A male detained immigrant from
Nigeria said, “The materials in the law library are sparse.
There was no printer access until six months ago. Only two
computers are available in the law library.” 403 Detained immigrants also expressed that much of the material in library
is out of date with old computers and no internet access.
The lack of internet access can make it incredibly difficult
for asylum-seekers to access current articles relating to their
home countries. When Project South investigators toured
the law library, they noted that the law library appeared to
also be a cleaning storage supply closet, with a strong smell
of bleach. 404 Detained immigrants report that the procedure for printing and mailing documents is very formal and
includes a lengthy request process, which makes preparing
for a court proceeding a substantial challenge, especially if
individuals are representing themselves pro se.
Recently, ICE has made an attempt to address some of
the concerns raised in this section by providing detained
immigrants at Irwin the ability to engage in private Video
Teleconferencing (VTC) with their attorneys. Computers
have been loaded with the free video calling application in
a private area to accommodate VTC meetings. 405 We have
yet to see if these changes have actually improved communication between detained immigrants and their attorneys.

42

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

iii. Admissions
When detained immigrants arrive at Irwin, their personal
property, money, and clothing are taken by the processing office. 406 Detained immigrants are given a receipt for
each personal item retained which they will be required to
keep until they are released so that they may exchange the
receipts for their property. 407 Detained immigrants are
then classified based on an interview along with the consideration of their criminal record. If a detained immigrant
feels that they are misclassified, they may file a grievance. 408
Although it is not specified in the handbook, some detained
immigrants report being placed in segregation for the first
twenty-four to forty-eight hours of their arrival at Irwin,
while space is made for them in the general population.
Some immigrants reported waiting up to a week in solitary
confinement. A male detained immigrant from Guatemala
said that he knew of people who were kept in segregation for
two to three weeks upon their arrival only because officers
did not have any other place to put them. 409
Notably, upon admission to Irwin, detained immigrants are
supposed to receive a handbook detailing the facility’s rules
and legal information that detained immigrants need to be
aware of. 410 However, if these handbooks are provided, they
are generally only in English, leaving non-English speaking
detained immigrants dependent on other immigrants to
translate complex and important information.
According to the handbook, detained immigrants at Irwin
are initially provided two of the following: uniforms, socks,
undergarments, and sheets. 411 They are also given a bath
towel, washcloth, blanket, mattress, footwear, toothbrush,
toothpaste, soap, comb, shampoo, and lotion. Any replacement items must be requested from a housing officer. 413
However, some detained immigrants report not receiving
sufficient supplies and that requests for new supplies are
ignored. 414 One immigrant was moved to a new dorm, was
not given a new set of clothes, and had to borrow clothes
from other fellow detained immigrants. 415 Several detained
immigrants interviewed reported being provided with used
clothing upon arrival, including undergarments. A male
detained immigrant from Mexico reported the following:
We are given single-use hygiene products when
we get in the facility. They are supposed to bring
us more hygiene products on Monday and Friday.
Sometimes they don’t come all week. One guy was
given a uniform that was a size L but he was a
3XL. They forced him to wear the L. The shoes I
was given are several sizes too big. I told them, but
they refused to replace them. The shoes they gave
me are ripped. And, they gave me used boxers that
had holes in them when I arrived. All of the clothes
I received upon arrival were used. I put in a request

when I got here but I have not received a response.
Everyone is walking around with holes. 416

The lack of privacy is evidenced in the experiences from a
legal intern from Project South, who regularly called immigrants at Irwin to discuss various matters including personal
medical information. She stated that she frequently heard
guards and staff talking and laughing in the background
during the conversations.

A male detained immigrant from Ghana, who has been at
the detention center for eighteen months, asked for new
socks, underwear, and blankets. However, not a single request of his was fulfilled. 417

v. 	 Housing

iv. Phones
Contrary to the standards specified in the PBNDS, phone
usage is limited, expensive, and not private. Detained immigrants reported only three functioning phones at Irwin and
all of them are located in public areas. Detained immigrants
have access to the phones between 5:00 a.m. and 11:00
p.m. In order to make phone calls, detained immigrants
must purchase calling cards. The phone calls are capped at
fifteen minutes per call, and the cost to make a phone call
is extremely high. Detained immigrants report prices of international calls between $5 and $15 for fifteen minutes depending on the country. Some detained immigrants report
having to spend roughly 30 cents a minute calling numbers
in Georgia. A male detained immigrant from Jamaica said,
“The phone calls are way too expensive; $2 to begin a call
and 34 cents a minute to continue the call. International
calls are $1 a minute.” 418 Another male detained immigrant
from Honduras said “that calls are monitored or taped, and I
have to pay a flat fee of $4.80 for up to fifteen minutes.” 419
A female detained immigrant from Guatemala said:

Men and women are housed separately at the Irwin. The
units range from settings more like a dorm with bunk beds
to an open space with everyone sleeping in the same room.
Some women report living in large dorm like settings, which
are overcrowded and lack privacy. Men have reported two
different living set ups – one with small cells and one with
a large dorm style living area that houses over fifty people
in bunk beds. Some of the male detained immigrants have
reported being housed in living areas that are divided up
into two and four-person cells with a washbasin and toilet
in each cell, and no windows. Each of these units consist of
thirty-two beds and three phones, a few tables, a shared recreation area, and one television in English and one in Spanish. A detained immigrant from Cameroon described one of
the male living areas as having only one small window in the
ceiling. According to detained immigrants, the dorms are
dirty, dusty, and unsanitary. However, before an inspection,
officials rush to clean the facility.

Overall, the conditions are prison-like. 422

I was allowed to make a free call for two minutes
when I first entered. Now, I have to pay if I want to
use the phone, but I have no money except the $1
that I make from cleaning the detention center. 420
The high costs of the calls are particularly problematic
because in some instances phone calls are the only way the
detained immigrants can communicate with their attorneys
and family. A detained immigrant from Ghana stated:
I spent 80 dollars a week on phone calls when I was
fighting my case. The calls drop frequently and the
detainees are forced to pay again. 421
In addition to the high cost of placing phone calls, detained
immigrants report not being allowed to place free calls to
their attorneys, and not having a private place to have phone
calls with them. Occasionally, other phones are available for
attorney-client phone calls, but these phones are also located
in public areas.
This raises serious concerns about attorney-client privilege,
as well as the effectiveness of counsel if they are not able to
communicate in a meaningful way with their clients.

Detained immigrants consistently report that the living
conditions are overcrowded and uncomfortable. Both men
and women expressed discomfort with the temperature of
the units and problems with the showers and toilets. A male
detained immigrant from Guatemala reported the following:
The lights are always on throughout the day.
Sometimes it is too hot in the daytime and too cold at
night. We cannot change the temperature by ourselves.
During the winter, there are not enough clothes or
blankets for us, so we feel uncomfortable. 423
Additionally, some units have a toilet and a shower that
function well but they produce only very hot water. A female
detained immigrant from Honduras reported the following:
There is a toilet and a shower in each unit. They
function but the shower only produces very hot
water. At first, we washed our hair in the shower
but it would fall out when we brushed it. Now we
take water from the sink for our hair. The facility

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

43

is aware that the water is too hot but nothing has
been done. 424
Additionally, detained immigrants from various housing
areas report that the facility is not clean. Instead of having
hired staff to ensure the facility is clean, detained immigrants are expected to clean the facility themselves. This
problem is exacerbated by the fact that several detained
immigrants reported not being supplied adequate supplies
to clean their units. This has resulted in moldy infection-riddled bathrooms and unsanitary clothing. A male detained
immigrant from Mexico said the following:
We have on-going issues getting the right chemicals
to clean the unit with. We did not receive chemicals
three days in a row this week. As a result, the unit
stays dirty. They only give us two spray bottles with
cleaning chemicals for the whole unit (16 cells and a
dayroom). 425
The washrooms are consistently dirty. The same people who
are assigned to clean the unit are also asked to clean the
washroom. A male detained immigrant from Nigeria said
the following:
The facility does not use appropriate cleaning
products and only uses bleach on special occasions.
I requested to have hand sanitizer in the pod but
was denied because of the alcohol content. There
is no Lysol in the unit. I caught the flu when I first
entered the facility because my living area was not
sufficiently clean. 426
Further, several detained immigrants reported having limited recreation or positive ways for individuals to occupy their
time in detention. They are supposed to receive one hour
of recreation per day. However, some male detained immigrants stated that the guards do not follow the recreation
schedule and this often results with no outside recreation for
a couple days. There are other forms of recreation available
to detained immigrants at Irwin. Detained immigrants are
allowed to get books from a book cart once a week. However, a detained immigrant from Honduras filled out a request
form to get Spanish-language books, but found out that
there are none. 427

vi. Food and Water
The quality of the food served at Irwin is very concerning.
Detained immigrants almost unanimously reported finding objects in the food, being forced to eat rancid foods,
and needing to supplement their diets by purchasing food
at the commissary, which they are allowed to do twice per
week. The food that is served is very high in sodium, mostly
44

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

potato-based, and contains little to no fruit, vegetables, or
meat. A male detained immigrant from El Salvador said, “I
have gotten some food that smelled spoiled. Sometimes it is
undercooked and I’ve seen hair in my friend’s food. I supplement my diet with the commissary food, but I still have lost
weight. The water tastes like metal.” 428 A male detained immigrant from Cameroon said that the food is allowed to sit,
and as a result, the food is often not warm when it is served.
He once flipped over the meat on his plate and discovered
that it was rotten. Another male detained immigrant from
Nigeria said that the food is so “horrendous” that sometimes
he has to fast. He reported the following:
If it is rice, there is water in it. If it’s beans, there
is water in it. String beans are served with water all the time, and the cabbage is swimming in
water. People in the kitchen are told to water the
food down so that the portions appear larger.
There is hair in the food all the time. I have lost
fifteen pounds during my detention at Irwin. We
are served the same food almost every day. I have
recently been diagnosed as border-line anemic. I
spend $100-150 a month on food to supplement
what we are given. 429
Furthermore, detained immigrants reported that foreign
objects like a rock, and even a nail, have been found in the
food. A female detained immigrant from Mexico stated that
her friend found a cockroach in her food a week before the
interview.
The poor food quality and lack of adequate food portions
has also led to considerable weight loss for several detained
immigrants. A male from Jamaica stated “I rarely receive
vegetables or fruit. Maybe we will receive an apple a week
if we are lucky. There is not enough food. I have lost thirty pounds since coming to Irwin.” 431 This sentiment was
echoed by several detained immigrants. Detained immigrants also complain that they are still hungry when they
finish eating, and as a result, they have to buy food from
the commissary. A female from Guatemala said that there
was never a consistent amount of food. Sometimes, she said
there was a sufficient amount of food, but other times, they
had very little food. Further, a male detained immigrant
from Mexico stated his experience as follows:
I believe the reason why the facility gives the detainees
so little food is so we will have to buy food from the
commissary. Everything in the commissary is expensive. I spend $80/week, $320/month, in the commissary. The water is nasty. Detainees get ice and let it
melt and drink water that way. One week the water
came out yellow; it looked like Kool-Aid. 432

“
	

We are rushed to eat. The officers always yell at us “come on, go!”

Dinner is the same like lunch. Because I work in the kitchen, I know that no one wears mask
coverage in the kitchen for food preparation and there is not enough soap for washing
dishes. Overall, the food is plain. Majority of the time, the food is undercooked or rotten
or has foreign objects in it. Once when a detainee found rotten object in his food, the officer
picked the object out and told him he could eat the rest. The food is not enough and I am
always hungry. I have lost weight. I buy food from the commissary to supplement my
diet. I spend about $40 per week for extra food. 430

— An immigrant from Guatemala

The poor food quality at Irwin has led to protest and food
poisoning on at least one occasion.
Lastly, according to the PBNDS, detained immigrants are to
be served Kosher or common fare as an accommodation for
religious diets. 433 Common fare is both Kosher and Halal,
and any other specialized diets must be specifically requested. 434 In addition to religious diets, detained immigrants
are also supposed to be provided a diet that is suitable for
their medical condition. However, a few detained immigrants report having trouble receiving adequate diets
for their religious or medical needs. For example, a male
detained immigrant from Cameroon who eats a Kosher diet
that consists of mostly vegetables and beans said that the
food is not actually Kosher.
The findings highlighted in this section raise serious
concerns about the food being provided to the detained immigrants at Irwin and shows that the PBNDS are not being
followed.

	vii. Hygiene
Unhygienic living conditions are another major concern.
Detained immigrants reported that personal hygiene items
were provided upon admission. After this, personal hygiene
products are only provided in weekly packages for indigent
detained immigrants who have a balance of less than $15
for a period of thirty consecutive days. 435 However, several
detained immigrants report not receiving weekly packages
and that their requests for additional hygiene products go
ignored. One male detained immigrant from Ghana stated,
“I have been at the detention center for eighteen months and
I have asked for new socks, underwear, and blankets, but not
a single request has been fulfilled.” 436

“

are often returned dirty, smelly, or wet with dark water. A
male detained immigrant from Guatemala said, “The sheets,
towels, and pillow case are changed once a month, but they
don’t smell clean and are returned wet.” 437 Further, detained
immigrants are allowed to do their own laundry every other
day; however, the clothes still smell the same even after
being washed. A male detained immigrant from Mexico
reported the following:
When I send my clothes to the laundry they do not
come back clean. If you were to ring out the clothes
when they come back from the laundry, black
liquid would come out. I hand-wash my underwear and socks so that they are actually clean. I
had an infection from dirty underwear previously.
Also, there is black mold in the shower. I tried to
clean it, but it would not come off. We do not have
adequate access to cleaning supplies. The cleaning
supplies are too watered down to work properly. We
have gone two weeks without access to any bleach.
Everyone gets fungus from the showers. Detainees
must wear the same pair of shoes in the shower as
they do around the unit. My socks and underwear
are never replaced. At one point, I was housed in a
unit that had one shower for 100 people. It was very
overcrowded. 438
For the female detained immigrants, the facility does
provide feminine hygiene products once a month, but the
sanitary napkins are insufficient. If women require additional feminine hygiene products beyond what is provided per
month, the women must purchase more from the commissary for $2 per twenty-count package. A woman may have to
work for two days or more to pay for only one package, and
without a job, a woman’s options are even more limited.

Additionally, male detained immigrants report having to
wait one month for linens to be cleaned, but claim the linens
Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

45

PAUL’S STORY
Paul’s name has been changed in order to maintain confidentiality. Paul is a Nigerian asylum-seeker
who was until recently detained at the Irwin County Detention Center in Georgia (“Paul” is a
pseudonym to protect his safety). Paul is thirty-six-years-old and was healthy before being taken
into custody.

D

uring the summer of 2016, Paul had
experienced tooth pain and ultimately
was brought to the dentist on August
10. At the dentist’s office, he requested to use
the restroom. A transport officer escorted him
to the bathroom, tied his hands and feet to
the toilet, and wrapped a chain tightly around
his waist. While chained to the toilet, Paul
explained to the officer that the chain was too
tight for him to urinate because it was pushing
into his bladder.

In the 1990s, Paul had undergone bladder
surgery. He recovered from the surgery and
no longer experienced any bladder related
issues, but the doctor had cautioned him not to
cause any additional injury to his bladder. Paul
pleaded with the officer to loosen the chain
around his body because it was physically
impossible for him to relieve himself and it was
causing him a great deal of pain. The officer
refused to loosen the chain and insisted that
the restraints were necessary.
Since that day, Paul consistently experienced
intense pain and felt weak throughout his body.
He continuously requested medical attention
but did not receive timely care. When he was

46

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

finally allowed to see doctors outside of the
facility, they said that he needed surgery.
The facility medical staff was fully aware
of this; they attempted a surgery in October
at a regional hospital, but it was unsuccessful
and the surgeon stated he must be brought
to a specialist for surgery. The medical staff
dragged their feet for months, finally
securing a specialist and scheduling the
surgery for late March 2017.
After months of advocacy and securing
of pro bono legal representation, Paul
was finally released on parole, immediately
before surgery was scheduled to be
performed. He was then able to have
surgery, but left with the expense. He
remains with a drainage tube in his
bladder, and requires a second more
involved surgery this summer.

	viii. Work
Detained immigrants are allowed to work voluntarily,
completing various jobs, from cooking and cleaning to
administrative positions such as distributing items to new
arrivals. Detained immigrants are paid $1 per day or less
for a full day’s work. In other words, to pay for one minute
on the phone, detained immigrants must work for one day.
Some detained immigrants report needing to work in order
to have money available for the commissary to supplement
their food and hygiene products. A detained immigrant
from Guatemala reported the following:
Working in the kitchen, basically I am responsible
for putting the food on the plate, serving food, and
washing dishes. I work in the kitchen every day. I
am paid $1 per day. Sometimes they don’t pay me
for working on weekends, and I have to complain
to them. But they never respond. I haven’t got the
money I am supposed to get so far. I burned my
hands one time and had to finish my work first
before going to see the doctor. The facility told me
the work program was voluntary. 439
Across the board, detained immigrants at Irwin report
earning only $1 even if they work a full day and regardless
of what their job is at the facility. A male detained
immigrant from Nigeria reported that he works every
day from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., and that he only receives $1
per day as compensation. Yet, while some detained
immigrants hold jobs at the facility, other immigrants
are unaware of the work program. A female detained
immigrant from Guatemala stated, “I did not participate
in the work program because I did not know about it. I
would have wanted a job if I knew about it.” 440
The working conditions of these detained immigrants raise
serious issues. Detained immigrants are being subjected
to civil detention, thus their confinement should not be
punitive. The work the detained immigrants do is what
the facility needs in order to function, and the facility
pays detained immigrants for these jobs at well-below
minimum wage. Because the facility is a privately-owned
for-profit business, the corporation is able to exploit
detained immigrant labor while requiring those same
individuals to pay inflated prices for basic needs, such as
food and personal hygiene products.

	ix. Religious freedom
Detained immigrants report that they are not provided
enough freedom to practice the religion of their choice. The
officers often interrupt their prayers and religious services,
and even ask the detained immigrants to maintain silence

during their worship services. 441 The immigrants have to
conduct religious services themselves because the detention
center does not run any religious programing. Other detained immigrants pray in the same rooms where they sleep.
Some detained immigrants said that they go to the basketball court and listen to one of the individuals preach. One
previously detained immigrant who was interviewed after
being deported to Guatemala stated:
Initially guards did not allow us to have Evangelical service, but after several detained immigrants
complained, we were permitted to sing and read
scriptures. 442
Detained immigrants also reported having difficulty just
attending religious services and having access to religious
materials. Reportedly, detained immigrants who attempt to
attend religious services may be turned away for not being a
member of that religion. Maxi Sopo, a detained immigrant
from Cameroon, stated, “The only thing keeping me going is
my belief in God, but when I try to attend religious services
that are offered, I am denied because I’m Jewish and the
service is a different religion.” 443 Difficulty in requesting
holy books and religious texts was also reported. For example, a female detained immigrant from El Salvador said the
following:
I have asked for a bible in Spanish many times but I
still have not received it. All the bibles they have are
in English. I am a Catholic and would like to have
Catholic religious programs but there are not any.
There is no place to pray. 444
Numerous issues involving prayer were reported. Another
example of a prayer issue was described by a male detained
immigrant from Nigeria. He said the following: materials.
Reportedly
I am fasting right now for Ramadan. There are no
religious services provided from the outside. There
is Juma’ah prayer every Friday, which is run by the
detainees. But, officers burst into Friday prayer and
interrupt us on two occasions. Female officers attempted to enter the room during prayer, but based
on our religious beliefs and practices, it is not appropriate for women to enter the male prayer room
while we are in the middle of prayer. I have never
seen an officer interrupt a Christian gathering. 445

x. Medical Care
The lack of adequate access to medical care is alarming. Detained immigrants must make a 4 a.m. sick call in order to
be seen by medical staff. Irwin employs two to three on-duty

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

47

medical staff during normal working hours, and a doctor
who comes in on occasion. 446 Most of the time, detained
immigrants are only able to see medical staff. All detained
immigrants are supposed to receive a medical evaluation at
intake. Some detained immigrants reported more extensive
physical examinations upon arriving at the facility, while
other individuals reported only being asked medical history
questions without a physical exam. Some immigrants reported that they have never seen a doctor at the facility at all.
Additionally, detained immigrants must fill out a request
form that is provided in English and Spanish in order to
obtain medical treatment. However, some Spanish speaking detained immigrants are unaware that they may fill out
the form in Spanish. Once the form is submitted, detained
immigrants may be granted access to medical and mental
care on-site, and dental care off-site. The wait times can
be tremendous. Detained immigrants reported wait times
between two days to two weeks before being seen by medical
staff. It is a violation of international human rights principles
to delay receipt of medical care. 447
Even more concerning is that several detained immigrants
report having their medical conditions either undertreated
or not treated at all. One male detained immigrant from
Nigeria with a serious medical condition recalls his experience as follows:
I had lumps in my chest and blood had begun
discharging from my breast. When I requested
medical care, sometimes no one would reply. I was
not given medical care until ICE later approved it.
When I reached out for medical help, I was placed
in solitary confinement. 448
Another male detained immigrant from Jamaica reports his
experience below:
My prior medical records were not transferred
correctly and Irwin has fought my request for
medical treatment. I received some checkups, in

“
	

which the doctor quickly listed me as healthy
without doing any physical checkup. I believe
Irwin is trying to avoid paying for my medical
treatment. 449
Another example where a detained immigrant’s medical
condition went untreated is illustrated by a previously
detained immigrant who was interviewed after being
deported to Guatemala: “At Irwin, I had a medical issue and
was physically unable to go to the bathroom during the time
in solitary confinement. I needed to see a doctor but was
never allowed until I was taken to Stewart.” 450 These are
only a few examples of the glaring medical issues at Irwin.
For most of the detained immigrants, translation is a hurdle
for those trying to access medical care. The medical staff is
generally not bilingual. Consequently, an outside translation
company is used for communication between the people
being detained and the medical staff including the doctors.
This translation takes place via the phone. Many female
detained immigrants feel that the translator on the other end
of the telephone call was not adequately translating their
medical concerns. There are several nurses; however, very
few can converse in Spanish. Consequently, the immigrants
are forced to speak to an unknown translator over the
phone.
The spread of infections and rashes are common, especially
in the large dorm units. Flus, colds, stomach illnesses, and
skin rashes pass between the immigrants without sufficient
medical staff intervention. Several detained immigrants have
had rashes since arriving at the facility and have received
unsatisfactory medical care. Accordingly, many still had
rashes on their bodies during the interviews. As one female
detained immigrant from Mexico stated:
I am afraid of getting sick. I got a small circular
rash on my arm. I got antibiotic cream at the
commissary but it did not work. I got another
cream at the infirmary. I asked for pills but they

I did not receive any mental health screenings.

I have not accessed mental health services. I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder
in El Salvador but I didn’t tell them here. If they can’t even bother to get me glasses,
how can they help with my bigger medical problems? I don’t know if they have
mental health services. I don’t know of anyone who sought help. 455

— An immigrant from El Salvador

“

would not give them to me. Other women also
have the rash. Last month several fainted. I think
this was because the food is bad and they did not
eat it. 451

privacy, and under constant observation of the
officers. The officers keep a watch on them for twenty-four hours, even during showers. 454

Another woman from El Salvador reported that some
pregnant detained immigrants do not receive prenatal care
and said:
I know of pregnant detainees. The pregnant
detainees are treated the same as everyone else and
do not receive prenatal care. 452
At least on one occasion, a detained immigrant has had
difficulty receiving proper care for eye care issues. A male
detained immigrant from El Salvador said that he has been
suffering from migraines, but the medicine he was provided
with upsets his stomach. Furthermore, for allergic
reactions, the nurses kept giving him lotions, but no proper
medication was provided. His request for eye glasses was
not fulfilled in a timely manner either. The lack of needed
glasses has contributed to his frequent headaches. Overall,
the detained immigrants are not satisfied with the medical
care or medication that they receive.

xi. Mental Health Care
The lack of adequate mental health care at the facility makes
it hard for detained immigrants to cope with the living conditions at Irwin. While there is a mental health staff member
employed at Irwin, detained immigrants report being afraid
to voice mental health concerns for fear of being forced into
the segregation unit. Additionally, therapists are available
through video conferencing. A detained immigrant has to
file a request for mental health services. During the meeting
with the counselor, some individuals are only interviewed
instead of actually being offered counseling services.
A male detained immigrant from Nigeria said:
Counseling is relational and should be in person. If
there were a counselor in here that I could go to, I
would have been able to navigate this whole thing
with a better frame of mind. 453
At least one detained immigrant we spoke to had to take
anxiety pills because of his experiences during detention at
Irwin. Additionally, detained immigrants stated that if an individual says that they are suicidal, the individual is strapped
into a straitjacket and placed into solitary confinement.
Further, a detained immigrant from Guatemala said:
Some detained immigrants are also put on suicide
watch. They are put in a separate room, with no

Notably, at least a few detained immigrants were never
questioned about their mental health upon arrival, and as
a result, they are not aware of the existence of mental care
within the detention facility.
Perhaps the most disturbing take away from detained
immigrants’ experiences with mental health services, or the
lack there of, is that segregation is also forced on individuals
with mental health issues. These individuals are thrown into
segregation without being provided proper psychiatric medications or the appropriate psychological treatment. Both
the Department of Justice and the U.N. Special Rapporteur
on Torture recommend banning segregation on individuals with mental health issues as this only exacerbates their
condition. 456

xii. Segregation
Irwin’s administrative and disciplinary segregation are one
and the same. Detained immigrants housed in a segregated
unit spend twenty-three hours in their cells, with limited
recreation, shower, and phone access, and no access to the
law library or commissary. 457 Most detained immigrants
interviewed for this report described segregation as a tool
used for disciplinary purposes. Some detained immigrants
reported that if an individual told a staff member or nurse
they were feeling suicidal, they were placed in a straitjacket
and placed in segregation. 458 Additionally, there were a
number of reports of people being held in segregation for
over a month. 459 Others report being placed in segregation
for various reasons. A male detained immigrant from Cameroon shared the following story:
I have been placed in segregation at Irwin four
times for approximately one month each time.
First, for helping a fellow detainee translate a letter
to English. Second, because they said I tampered
with a computer, but I didn’t tamper with it. Third,
because they tried to transfer me to ACDC but they
could not accommodate my diet, so they transferred
me back. Fourth, because I was supposedly in
“possession of contraband” but really I just kicked a
piece of paper to try to get it out of the way and was
sent to segregation. Irwin does not distinguish between administrative and disciplinary segregation,
like they are supposed to. While in segregation, you
must choose between using the phone and having
your hour of recreation. 460

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

49

xiii. Staff and Administrative Issues

Another male detained immigrant from Cameroon said
the following:

Overall, detained immigrants do not have a satisfactory
experience with the guards at Irwin. Irwin is run by 230
LaSalle staff; only a few of whom speak some Spanish. 463
Due to the language barriers, detained immigrants report a
lack of respectful communication and supervision from the
guards. Detained immigrants, as well as the guards who are
not well versed in English are often in a vulnerable position.
Detained immigrants who speak Spanish have expressed
that they are dependent on other detained immigrants to
communicate.

I was sent to segregation for eight days. The segregation unit is dirty and stinks like a toilet. The sink
and toilet are covered in black stuff. Everything is
dusty and bugs and flies are everywhere. You are
allowed to shower every other day in segregation
and allowed to make a fifteen-minute phone call.
There is no cold water in the segregation cell and
the very hot water ran all day. There is a number
on the wall to call Washington, D.C. but nothing
really changes. 461

Additionally, several detained immigrants have expressed
that guards at Irwin are hostile and regularly yell at detained
immigrants, even when unprovoked. One detained immigrant from Guatemala stated that the guards will often walk
down the halls yelling “go back to your own country.” 464 A
male detained immigrant from Cameroon reported that
guards tell him “you’ll never get out.” Another male detained
immigrant from Honduras shared his experience with the
guards as follows:

In addition to using segregation as a means of punishment
or housing individuals who express mental health concerns,
a male detained immigrant from Nigeria once witnessed
another person being put into segregation for six months for
attempting to start a protest about the food. 462
The use of segregation as expressed in the detained immigrant interviews most certainly violates basic human rights
standards as well as PBNDS.

“
	

The guards treat me as if I am a criminal. I treat
them with respect but they do not treat me with
respect. I am not used to feeling disrespected.

I have witnessed and experienced rape. I was unconscious

for three days. I went to medical and they confirmed that I was raped. I would ask them for the
number to my embassy, the numbers to all the consulates, and they wouldn’t give it to me. I asked
them for weeks on end. They wouldn’t let me contact the consulates. And at one point while I was
in the infirmary, they were denying the phone to me completely. They said they were going to
pursue charges against the men who raped me, but I never received notice that charges had been
filed. I heard wails in the middle of the night in the male dorms, and I believe other men were being
raped. Everyone knew what was going on, but they just made louder sounds to cover the noise up.
What’s really sad is that no matter what you do, you push the button in the room, those officers
will take their sweet time. Something awful could be happening in those rooms, and those
officers will take their time. I have never seen anything like that. It’s horrible. 467

— A male immigrant from El Salvador
50

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

“

During the count, the guard will yell and scream
to get you up because you cannot sleep during the
count no matter what time it is. 465
The lack of respect shown to detained immigrants is further
evidenced by the experience of a male detained immigrant
from Guatemala:
The staff does not treat you with respect. For example, they always yell at us like “keep your hands
back and look down” when we walk. Verbal abuse
happens regularly from the staff. 466
Additionally, detained immigrants who complain or file
grievances are reportedly victims of retaliatory segregation.
Detained immigrants reported being unaware that there is
a formal grievance procedure, and those who have reported
filing grievances almost never receive any kind of response
or acknowledgment.
Some detained immigrants reported that guards do not intervene in altercations between detained immigrants, which
is especially problematic because of the sexual assaults that
are reportedly being ignored by staff. In fact, disturbing
complaints have come from detained immigrants who report witnessing or being victims of sexual abuse and having
no guards or other staff at Irwin attempt to identify and
discipline the perpetrators.
These accounts expose the most egregious violations of the
PBNDS at Irwin. They also illustrate how the violations not
only affect the victim, but also other detained immigrants
who witness such actions.

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

51

VII. CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Immigration detention is civil in nature and thus, the
conditions of immigration detention should not amount
to punishment. Unfortunately, this report reveals how
immigration detention can be punitive in practice, but
can also lead to medical neglect, hunger, and sexual abuse.
The Supreme Court has held that detention conditions are
punitive when they are “excessive relative to their stated
purpose.” 468 In 2012, the report Prisoner of Profit outlined
the unacceptable conditions of immigration detention
centers in Georgia. The findings in this report have shown
that not much has changed, and the same concerns remain.
Imprisoned Justice highlights the inhumane conditions of the
Stewart and Irwin detention centers in Georgia. Some of the
worst offenses include: threats of force-feeding for participation in hunger strikes, sexual abuse, lack of clean drinking
water, lack of access to legal materials or attorneys, and labor
for just $1 per day. Additionally, detained immigrants are
frequently served rotten and spoiled food. Further, detained
immigrants at both facilities lack adequate medical care and
mental health services are minimal. Moreover, the use of
segregation for civil detention is far too rampant. Several
detained immigrants reported being put in segregation for
expressing suicidal thoughts or as retaliation for complaining about detention conditions. These findings are echoed
in other reports about Georgia’s detention centers that were
published during the writing of this report. 469
In 2012, the United Nations High Commissions for
Refugees (UNHCR) issued the Guidelines on the
Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the
Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to
Detention. The guidelines require that conditions of
detention should be humane and dignified. 470 The
conditions at Irwin and Stewart, as described by the
detained immigrants interviewed for Imprisoned Justice,
are nowhere close to humane. Detained immigrants should
be treated in a respectful manner and be provided with
adequate food and water, proper medical facilities, adequate
clothing, adequate items and facilities for personal hygiene; and they should be allowed to exercise their religion.
These are basic human rights, but detained immigrants at
Irwin and Stewart are treated as though they do not have
any rights. The problem seems to be inherent in the profit-making motive of the prison corporations that run these
detention centers.

52

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

Overall Recommendations:
	•	 Shut down the Stewart and Irwin detention centers;
	•	 ICE needs to implement policies that will hold contract 	
		 facilities accountable for not complying with ICE
		 standards;
	•	 ICE should terminate contracts with facilities that do
		 not meet its standards; and,
	•	 ICE should use the Alternative to Detention Program
		 for immigrants who are eligible.

Due Process
	•	
		
		
•		
		
•		
		
	•	
		
	•	
		
	•	
		
		
	•	
		

List of pro-bono services should be up-to-date, actually
contain free services and be distributed to all detained
immigrants upon their detention;
Qualified interpreters must be provided at every step of
the deportation process;
Detained immigrants should not be forced to sign orders
of removal without speaking with counsel;
Law libraries should include up-to-date materials in the
languages spoken by detained immigrants;
Detained immigrants should have more access to the law
libraries;
Private space should be allocated for detained
immigrants’ phone calls to counsel and during visitation
with counsel; and,
Attorney-client calls must not be monitored under any
circumstances.

Living Conditions
•		
	•	
		
		
	•	
		
	•	
	•	
		
		
	•	
		
		
	•	
		

ICE must ensure that all facilities follow the 2011 PBNDS;
All detained immigrants must be provided a safe living
environment and receive an immediate response when
their safety is threatened;
Meals should be served at reasonable times, and detained
immigrants should be afforded adequate time to eat;
Fresh fruit and vegetables must be served daily;
Detained immigrants must be provided adequate food
portions so they are not forced to spend money on
commissary every week;
Detained immigrants who need special diets due to
medical or religious reasons must be accommodated
adequately;
Food quality must be improved and should be inspected
by ICE staff regularly to ensure compliance;

	•	 The water quality must be addressed and brought to
		 standard;
	•	 All detained immigrants must be afforded outdoor
		 recreation; and,
	•	 Bilingual guards should be present at every facility during
		 every shift to foster effective communication with
		 detained immigrants.

Medical Care
	•	
	•	
		
	•	
		
	•	
		
	•	
		
	•	
		
	•	
		

ICE must ensure that bilingual medical staff is provided;
Each facility should provide at least one doctor and one
psychiatrist during the week;
A more effective procedure for seeking medical attention
should be put in place;
Serious medical conditions should be addressed
immediately and adequately;
Detained immigrants seeking non-emergency medical
care should be seen within 48 hours;
Specific instructions should be given to kitchen staff for
detained immigrants who need special diets; and,
Detained immigrants with mental disabilities should not
be put in segregation under any circumstances.

Detention Center Staff
	•	
		
		
	•	
		
		
		
	•	
		
	•	
		
		

Detention staff must not create arbitrary rules that have
the effect of prohibiting attorneys from being able to visit
their clients;
The grievance process must be made accessible to
detained immigrants, and detained immigrants must not
face retaliation by detention center guards or staff for
filing grievances;
Complaints that are filed must be responded to by the
respective office in which they are filed;
Detained immigrants must not be placed in
segregation for more than 15 days as recommended by
the U.N. Special Rapporteur.

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

53

		Miriam Jordan, Immigration Detention System Could
			be in Line for an Overhaul, Wall Street Journal (Sept. 27, 		
		2016), http://www.wsj.com/articles/immigrant-detention-		
		system-could-be-in-line-for-an-overhaul-1475004244.
2
		
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS Releases 	
		End of Fiscal Year 2016 Statistics (Dec. 30, 2016), https://
			www.ice.gov/news/releases/dhs-releases-end-fiscal-year		 	2016-statistics.
3
		Devlin Barrett, Record Immigrant Numbers Force Homeland 	
		Security to Search for New Jail Space, Wall Street Journal 		
		
(Oct. 21, 2016), http://www.wsj.com/articles/record-immi		
	 	grant-numbers-force-homeland-security-to-search-for-new-	
	 	jail-space-1477042202.
4
		ACLU of Georgia, Prisoners of Profit: Immigrants and 		
		Detention in Georgia, 28 (Azadeh Shahshahani, 2012), 		
		
https://www.acluga.org/en/publications/prisoners-profit.
5
		
Id.; Jeremy Redmon, CCA to close immigration detention 		
		center in Gainesville, Atlanta J. Const. (Dec. 2, 2013),
		
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/
		
cca-to-close-immigration-detention-center-in-gaine/
		
nb895/. (At the time of the publication of Prisoners of
		Profit, Hall County owned NGDC and both the Corrections
		Corporation of America (CCA) and the City of Gainesville
		were interested in purchasing it. In October 2012, the City of
		Gainesville financed the purchase of NGDC from Hall
		County for $7.2 million and entered into a lease agreement
		with CCA to operate it.)
6
		
Redmon, supra note 5.
7
		
Martha Dalton, Officials to Close North Georgia Detention
		Center in Gainesville, ACLU of Georgia (Dec. 5, 2013),
	 	https://www.acluga.org/en/news/Officials-to-Close-North
		
Georgia-Detention-Center-in-Gainesville
8
		
Id.
9
		
Elly Yu, New Immigrant Detention Center To Open In
		Folkston, Georgia, W.A.B.E. (Dec. 20, 2016), http://news.
	 	wabe.org/post/new-immigrant-detention-center-open-folk
		
ston-georgia.
10
		
Guillermo Cantor, Mark Noferi, and Daniel E. Martinez,
		
Enforcement Overdrive: A Comprehensive Assessment of ICE’s
		Criminal Alien program, American Immigration Council,
		4 (2015), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
	 	sites/default/files/research/enforcement_overdrive_a_com
	 	prehensive_assessment_of_ices_criminal_alien_program_
	 	final.pdf.
11
		
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 U.S.C.
		§ 1101 (1986), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/
	 	legacy/2009/03/04/IRCA.pdf. (The updated INA does not
		include this language).
12
		
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Criminal
		Alien Program (accessed on 8/1/2016 at 12:20pm),
	 	https://www.ice.gov/criminal-alien-program.
13
		
Id.
14
		
Supra, note 10.
15
		
Id.
1

54

		
Supra, note 10, at 5.
		
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Enforcement of the
		Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest
		
(Feb. 20, 2017). https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/
		
publications/17_0220_S1_Enforcement-of-the		
Immigration-Laws-to-Serve-the-National-Interest.pdf.
18
		
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
		Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1373(a) (1996), https://www.
		
uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ocomm/ilink/0-0-0-10948.html);
		
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) (2006);
		U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Delegation
		of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and
		Nationality Act, https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/287g
		(accessed 8/11/16 at 1pm).
19
		
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, supra, note 18.
20	
	U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Model
		Memorandum of Agreement, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/
		
detention-reform/pdf/287g_moa.pdf.
21
		
Congressional Research Service, Interior Immigration
		Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs, 19 (2016, William
		A. Kandel), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44627.pdf;
		
see also ACLU of Georgia, Terror and Isolation in Cobb: How
		Unchecked Police Power Under 287(g) Has Torn Families
		Apart and Threatened Public Safety, 7 (Azadeh Shahshahani
		2009), https://www.aclu.org/files/intlhumanrights/
	 	immigrantsrights/asset_upload_file306_41281.pdf; see
		also ACLU of Georgia, The Persistence of Racial Profiling in
		Gwinnett: Time for Accountability, Transparency, and an End
		to 287(g), 6-8 (Azadeh Shahshahani, 2010), https://www.
		
acluga.org/sites/default/files/gwinnett_racial_profiling_
		
report_1.pdf.
22
		
Id.
23
		
Supra, note 4, at 23.
24
		
Congressional Research Service, supra, note 21, at 2.
25
		
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, supra, note 18.
26
		
Letter from Immigration and Customs Enforcement
		Agency Director Sarah Saldana to Department of
		Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson (Mar. 17, 2016)
		
http://unitedwedream.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Or
		
ganizations-Urge-End-287g.pdf
27	
	Id.
28		
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, supra, note
		18; Elly Yu, Ga. Law Officers Continue Immigration
		Enforcement In Jails, W.A.B.E. (May 14, 2015), http://news.
		
wabe.org/post/ga-law-officers-continue-immigration-en
		
forcement-jails).
29		
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, supra, note
		18.
30		
ACLU of Georgia, et al, Prejudice, Policing, and Public
		Safety: The Impact of Immigration Hyper-Enforcement in
		the State of Georgia, 11 (2014), http://www.law.nyu.edu/
		
sites/default/files/upload_documents/Prejudice_Policing
		
_Public%20Safety.pdf.
31		
Id.
16

17

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

Id.
See Moreno v. Napolitano, No. 11 C 5452, 2016 U.S. Dist.
		LEXIS 136449, at *25 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 30, 2016) (stating that
		ICE's issuance of detainers that seek to detain individuals
		without a warrant goes beyond its statutory authority to
		make warrantless arrests, thus invalidating detainers issued
		from the Chicago Field Office.)
34		
ACLU of Georgia, Supra note, at 10-11.
35		
Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Secure
		Communities, (Nov. 20, 2014), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/
		
default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_secure_
		
communities.pdf.
36
		Id.
37	
	U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement, Secure
		Communities, https://www.ice.gov/secure-communities
		(accessed Oct. 25, 2016 at 4:00pm)
38
		Id.
39	
	Id.
40
		
Id.
41
		
Id.
42
		
Id.
43
		Aarti Kohli, Peter L. Markowitz and Lisa Chavez, University
		of California—Berkeley, Secure Communities by the
		Numbers: An Analysis of Demographics and Due Process,
		The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social
		Policy, 2 (Oct. 2011), http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Se
		
cure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf.
44
		
Id.
45
		
Id.
46
		
Id.
47
		
Supra, note 30, at 5.
48
		
See e.g., Memorandum, U.S. Immigration and Customs
		Enforcement, Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention,
		and Removal of Aliens (Mar. 2, 2011), http://www.ice.gov/
		
doclib/news/releases/2011/110302washingtondc.pdf.
49
		Andrea Castillo, Ga. joins program to check inmate status,
		Telegraph (Jan. 2, 2012), http://www.macon.com/latest		
news/article28632016.html.
50
		Supra, note 30, at 11.
51
		Supra, note 4, at 23.
52
		Julia Preston, States Resisting Program Central to Obama’s
		Immigration Strategy, New York Times (May 25, 2011),
		
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/us/06immigration.
		
html.
53
		Id.
54
		Id.
55
		See e.g., Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Ending Local
		Collaboration With ICE: A Toolkit for Immigrant Advocates,
		
vi (2015) https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/
	 	toolkit_final.compressed.pdf.
56
		Id.
57
		Jeremy Redmon, Immigration Enforcement Program to be
		Replaced in Jails Nationwide, Atlanta J. Constitution (Dec.
		14, 2014), http://www.myajc.com/news/state--regional-govt-

32		
33		

		
-politics/immigration-enforcement-program-re
		
placed-jails-nationwide/jpyvt4odYdT6UeoXlVYNnI/.
58		
Press Release, DeKalb County Sheriff ’s Office, Dekalb
		Sheriff Will Not Hold Released Inmates for Immigrations
		and Customs Without Warrants (Dec. 4, 2014)
		
https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/dekalb_
		
county.pdf.
59		
On file with the authors. (Fayette County Sheriff ’s Dept.)
60		
TRAC Immigration, Reforms of ICE Detainer Program
		Largely Ignored by Field Officers (Aug. 9, 2016),
		
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/432/.
61
		Id.
62
		Id.
63
		Exec. Order No. 13768, 82 Fed. Reg 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017),
		
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/
		
presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety	 	interior-united.
64
		Id.
65
	 	Id.
66
		Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 
		
Implementing the President’s Border Security and
		Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies (Feb.
		20, 2017) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publica
	 	tions/17_0220_S1_Implementing-the-Presidents-Border	 	Security-Immigration-Enforcement-Improvement		
Policies.pdf.
67
		Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security,
		
Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the
		National Interest, (Feb. 20, 2017) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/
	 	default/files/publications/17_0220_S1_
	 	EnforceMent-of-the-Immigration-Laws-to-Serve-the		
National-Interest.pdf.
68
	 Id.
69
	Tal Kopan, ICE Operations net nearly 700 arrests DHS Says,
		CNN (Feb. 13, 2017) http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/
	 	politics/ice-raids-enforcement-arrest-numbers/.
70
	 Id.
71
	 Detention Watch Network, Immigration Detention 101,
		
https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/issues/
	 	detention-101 (accessed on Aug. 11, 2016 at 2:30pm);
		Dora Schriro, Immigration Detention Overview and
		Recommendations, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 2
		(Oct. 6, 2009), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/
	 	odpp/pdf/ice-detention-rpt.pdf.
72
	 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, With Liberty and Justice
		for All: The State of Civil Rights at Immigration Detention
		Facilities, 12 (Sept. 2015), http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/
		
Statutory_Enforcement_Report2015.pdf; see also U.S.
		Customs and Border Protection, Border Security,
		
https://www.cbp.gov/border-security.
73
	 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, About CBP
		
(Nov. 21, 2016), https://www.cbp.gov/about;
		Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Hold
		Rooms and Short Term Custody (Jun. 2, 2008),

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

55

	 h
	 ttp://foiarr.cbp.gov/streamingWord.asp?i=378.
	 Supra, note 71; see also U.S. Immigration and
		
Customs Enforcement, https://www.ice.gov/.
75
	 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Executive Office of Immigration
		Review, https://www.justice.gov/eoir.
76
	 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).
77
	 Id.
78
	 Luz C. Gonzalez Fernandez, Immigration Detention
		in America: Civil Offense, Criminal Detention, Harvard J.
		of Hispanic Policy (Dec. 3, 2013), http://www.harvardhis
	 	panic.org/immigration-detention-in-america/.
79
	 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (2006).
80
	 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3)
		(2006).
81
	 National Immigration Forum, The Math of Immigration
		Detention, 5 (Aug. 2 2013), https://immigrationforum.org/
	 	blog/themathofimmigrationdetention/.
82
	 Id.
83
	 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)
		(iii)(IV) (2006).
84
	 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
		§ 1231 (2006).
85
	 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (2006).
86
	 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A)
		(2006).
87
	 Human Rights First, Lifeline on Lockdown, 25 (Aug. 26,
		2016), http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/life
		
line-lockdown-increased-us-detention-asylum-seekers.
88
	 Id.
89
	 Schriro, supra, note 71, at 9-11.
90
	 Id.
91
	 Id.
92
	 Id.
93
	 Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in
		Confinement, Immigration Detention Map & Statistics,
		
http://www.endisolation.org/resources/immigration-deten
		
tion/.
94
	 Supra, note 71.
95
	 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, supra, note 72, at 7;
		
See also, Homeland Security Act of 2002, 116 Stat. 2135,
		PUB. L. 107– 296 (Nov. 25, 2012).
96
	 Id. at 152.
97
	 Faiza W. Sayed, Challenging Detention: Why Immigrant
		Detained Immigrants Receive Less Process Than "Enemy
		Combatants" and Why They Deserve More, 111 Colum. L.
		Rev. 1833, 1836-44 (2011).
98
	 Id.
99
	 Id.
100
	Id.
101
	Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez, Immigration
		Detention as Punishment, 61 UCLA L. Rev. 1346, 1372.
		
(2014).
102
	Id.
103
	Id.
74

56

	Id. at 1360.
	Id. at 1361.
106
	 	Sylvia Rusin, Jie Zong, and Jeanne Batalova, Cuban
		Immigrants in the United States, Migration Policy Institute
		(Apr. 7, 2015), http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/
		
cuban-immigrants-united-states.
107
	Id. (The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
		was created in the early twentieth century and was an
		investigative component of the U.S. Department of Justice.
		Among its duties, the INS was responsible for inspecting
		travelers entering the United States at the ports of entry,
		regulating permanent and temporary immigration to the
		United States, controlling the borders, and identifying and
		removing individuals. After the September 11, 2001 attacks,
		Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which
		abolished INS and created DHS to take its place and its
		duties.); see U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
		
Origins of the Federal Naturalization Service, https://www.
		
uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency		
history/origins-federal-naturalization-service; see also
		TRACDHS, The INS and Its Responsibilities, http://trac.syr.
	 	edu/tracins/findings/aboutINS/insResponsibilities.html; see
		also Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 101-629
		(2002), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
	 	hr_5005_enr.pdf.
108
	Global Detention Project, United States Immigration
		Detention Profile, 3-6 (May 2016), https://www.globaldeten
		
tionproject.org/countries/americas/united-states.
109
	U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, supra, note 72, at 3.
110
	Id.
111
	Id.
112
	Id.
113
	Id.
114
	Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 8 U.S.C.
		§ 1 note (1996); Illegal Immigration Reform and
		Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. § 1101
		(1996).
115
	Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(43) (1996); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)
(IV) (1996).
116
	U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, supra, note 72, at 4.
117
	Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq.
		(2002).
118
	U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, supra, note 72, at 7.
119
	Id.
120
	Id. at 4.
121
	Nick Pleva, No big push in first year, Politifact (Aug. 13,
2010), http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
obameter/promise/525/introduce-comprehensive-immigration-bill-first-yea/
122
	Nina Bernstein, U.S. to Reform Policy on Detention for
		Immigrants, Wall Street Journal (Aug. 5, 2009)
		
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/us/politics/06detain.
	 	html.

104

105

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

	Id.
	Schriro, supra, note 71, at 3.
125
	Id.
126
	Id.
127
	Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
	 	2011, Pub. L. No. 111-242 (2010), http://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ242/pdf/PLAW-111publ242.pdf,
at 8.
128
	Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, H. R. 2055, https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2055enr/pdf/BILLS112hr2055enr.pdf, at 165.
129
	Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, The History of Prosecutorial
		Discretion in Immigration Law, 64 American Univ. L.
		Rev. 101-102 (2015).
130
	Id. at 107-108.
131
	Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Exercising
		Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil
		Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for
		the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens, 1
		(Jun. 17, 2011), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/
		
publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutorial_discretion.pdf.
132
	Id. at 2.
133
	Id. at 5.
134
	 Id. at 4.
135
	Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security,
		Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and
		Plaintiffs, 1 (Jun. 17, 2011), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/
		
default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutori
	 	al_discretion.pdf.
136
	Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security,
		Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and
		Plaintiffs, 1 (Jun. 17, 2011), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/
	 	default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutori
	 	al_discretion.pdf.
137
	Id.
138
	Id. at 2.
139
	Id.
140
	Id.
141
	Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Policies
		for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of
		Undocumented Immigrants, 1, 5 (Nov. 20, 2014), https://
		
www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_
	 	memo_prosecutorial_discretion.pdf.
142
	Id.
143
	Id.
144
	Id. at 4.
145
	Id.
146
	Id.
147
	Id.
148
	Id. at 5.
149
	Id.
150
	Supra, note 60.
151
	Supra, note 60.
152
	Supra, note 60.
123
124

153

	Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security,
	 	Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to
	 	Individuals Who Came to the United States as
	 	Children, 1 (Jun. 15, 2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/
		
assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individu
		
als-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf.
154
	U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, supra, note 72, at 5.
155
	Id. The survey was conducted by the National Immigration
	 	Law Center and Tom K. Wong of the University of
		California, San Diego.
156
	U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Executive
		Actions on Immigration, https://www.uscis.gov/
	 	immigrationaction (accessed on Aug. 11, 2016 at 2:00pm)
157
	Id.
158
	United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271, 2272 (2016),
	 	https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-674_
		 jhlo.pdf.
159
	U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE
		Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, Fiscal Year
	 	2015, 2 (Dec. 22, 2015), https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/
		 files/documents/Report/2016/fy2015removalStats.pdf.
160
	Id.
161
	U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Budget-in-Brief: Fiscal
	 	Year 2017, 35, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/
	 	publications/FY2017BIB.pdf.
162
	Supra, note 1; Devlin Barrett, Record Immigrant Numbers
	 	Force Homeland Security to Search for New Jail Space, Wall
	 	Street Journal (Oct. 21, 2016), http://www.wsj.com/articles/
	 	record-immigrant-numbers-force-homeland-security-to		 search-for-new-jail-space-1477042202.
163
	American Immigration Council, The Cost of
	 	Immigration Enforcement and Border Security (January 27,
	 	2017), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
	 	research/the-cost-of-immigration-enforcement-and	 	border-security
164
	Supra, note 161
165
	 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Alternatives
		to Detention (Revised),3 (Feb. 4, 2015), https://www.oig.dhs.
	 	gov/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG_15-22_Feb15.pdf; Id.
166
		 Detention Watch Network, Alternatives to Detention,
	 	https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/issues/alternatives.
167
	Id.
168
	Supra, note 161, at 35.
169
	American Friends Service Committee and Rutgers School
		of Law-Newark Immigrant Rights Clinic, Freed but not Free,
		1 (Jul. 2012) https://www.afsc.org/document/freed-not	 	free-report-examining-current-use-alternatives-to		
immigration-detention.
170
	Id.
171
	Id.
172
	Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
on Jun. 17, 2016.
173
	U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, supra, note 72, at 33.
174
	National Immigration Forum, The Math of Immigration

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

57

		 Detention, 7 (Aug. 22, 2013), https://immigrationforum.
		
org/blog/themathofimmigrationdetention/
175
	Corrections Corporation of America, 2012 Annual
		Report on form 10-K, p. F-4. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/
		 edgar/data/1070985/000119312516477634/d121974d10k.
	 	htm#toc.
176
	Bethany Carson and Eleana Diaz, Payoff: How Congress
		Ensures Private Prison Profit with an Immigrant Detention
		Quota, Grassroots Leadership, (Apr. 2015), http://grassroot
		 sleadership.org/reports/payoff-how-congress-ensures		 private-prison-profit-immigrant-detention-quota.
177
	Id.
178
	Id.
179
	Sharita Gruberg, How For-Profit Companies Are Driving
		Immigration Detention Policies, Center for American
	 	Progress (Dec. 18, 2015), https://www.americanprogress.
	 	org/issues/immigration/reports/2015/12/18/127769/
	 	how-for-profit-companies-are-driving-immigration	 	detention-policies/. (The national asylum grant rate for both
	 	detained and non-detained asylum-seekers is 49 percent.)
180
	Id.
181
	Supra, note 179.
182
	Supra, note 173.
183
	Supra, note 179.
184
	Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security,
		Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the
		National Interest, 1 (Feb. 20, 2017), https://www.dhs.gov/
		
sites/default/files/publications/17_0220_S1_Enforce
		
ment-of-the-Immigration-Laws-to-Serve-the-National	 	Interest.pdf.
185
	Id.
186
	Id.
187
	Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security,
		Implementing the President’s Border Security and
	 	Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies, (Feb. 20,
	 	2017), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/
	 	publications/17_0220_S1_Implementing-the	 	Presidents-Border-Security-Immigration-Enforcement		 Improvement-Policies.pdf.
188
	Id.
189
	See Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 609
		(1889) (establishing that “[t]he power of exclusion of
		foreigners” is “incident of sovereignty belonging to the
	 	government of the Unites States…”; See Fong Yue Ting v.
	 	United States, 149 U.S. 698, 707 (1893) (affirming the “right
	 	of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been
	 	naturalized, or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of
		the country”).
190
	The sole mention of immigration in the Constitution is in
		the Migration and Importation Clause, which originally
	 	referenced the State’s power to import slaves and migrate
		indentured servants. U.S. Const. art I, § 9 cl. 1. See Travis
		Silva, Toward a Constitutionalized Theory of Immigration
		Detention, Yale L. & Pol’y Rev., Fall 2012, at 230.

58

	See, Adam B. Cox, Immigration Law's Organizing Principles,
		157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 341, 346 (2008).
192
	Supra, note 76, at 695.
193
	Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976).
194
	Supra, note 76, at 693.
195
	Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d917, 927 (9th Cir. 2004).
196
	Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982) (holding that Texas
		violated the Equal Protection Clause with educational
		polices that discriminated against undocumented children).
197
	See Zadvydas, supra, note 76, at 693 (2001) (“once an
		alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for
		the Due Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the
		United States . . . ”).  
198
	Supra, note 76, at 678.
199
	Supra, note 76, at 682-86.
200
	Supra, note 76, at, 690.
201
	Supra, note 76, at 695, 699-700. See also Rodriguez v.
		Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015) (The Ninth
		Circuit Court of Appeals held that noncitizens held in pro
		longed detention—six months or longer—are entitled to a
		bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. The Supreme
		Court granted certiorari and heard oral arguments on
		November 30, 2016 and asked the respective parties to file
		their supplemental briefs on or before January 21st.)
		
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jennings-v		
rodriguez/
202
	Supra, note 76, at, 701.
203
	Supra, note 76, at, 700. It is relevant to note that the
		decision in Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) extended
		the rule established in Zadvydas to noncitizens who were
		stopped at the border or port of entry, therefore falling into
		the lesser protected category discussed above. In doing so,
		the Court declined to eliminate the distinction with
		noncitizens who had “entered” the United States.
204
	Sopo v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 825 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2016).”
205
	Interview with Maxi Sopo at the Irwin County Detention
206
	Center (July 1, 2016).
207
	Supra, note 204, at 18.
208
	Supra, note 204, at 18.
209
	Supra note 204. at 2.
210
	Schriro, supra, note 71, at 4 (“As a matter of law,
		Immigration Detention is unlike Criminal Incarceration.”).
211
	Supra, note 76, at 690 (emphasis in original).
212
	Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979).
213
	Id. at 538; see also Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 932 (9th
		Cir. 2004).
214
	Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 537 (1952).
215
	Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321 (1982).
216
	Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 549 (2003) (Souter, J.,
		dissenting) (citation omitted).
217
	U.S. Const. amend. I.
218
	 Michael Kagan, Do Immigrants Have Freedom of
		Speech?, 6 Cal. L. Rev. 91 (2015).
219
	Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945); Chew v. Colding,
191

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

		355 U.S. 590, 598 n.5 (1953); See also Michael Kagan, Do 		
		Immigrants have Freedom of Speech?, 6 Cal. L. Rev.
		Circuit 84, 92 (2015).
220
	University of Michigan Law School, Civil Rights Litigation
		Clearing House, Case Profile: Pineda Cruz v. Thompson,
		
http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=14476.
		
Pineda Cruz v. Thompson, No. SA-15-CV-326-XR, ¶ 1 (W.D.
		Tex. 2014), https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/
	 	IM-TX-0040-0001.pdf.
221
	Id. at ¶ 5 and 6.
222
	Id. at ¶ 7.
223
	Id. at ¶ 124.
224
	Id. at ¶ 124-125.
225
	U.S. Const. amend. VIII.
226
	Adekoya v. Holder, 751 F. Supp. 2d 688, 694 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
227
	Turkmen v. Hasty, 789 F.3d 218, 250 n.34 (2d Cir. 2015).
228
	Hernandez v. Lynch, No. 16-620, ¶ 1 (C.D.Cal. 2016).
229
	Id. at ¶ 63.
230
	American Immigration Council, A Primer on Expedited
		
Removal, (Feb. 2017) https://www.american
		
immigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/a_
	 	primer_on_expedited_removal.pdf.
231
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)
		(ii) (2006).
232
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)
		(2006).
233
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)
		(iii)(IV) (2006)
234
	.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Parole of
		Arriving Aliens Found to Have a Credible Fear of Persecution
		or Torture, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/
		
pdf/11002.1-hd-parole_of_arriving_aliens_found_credible_
		
fear.pdf.
235
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (2006).
236
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(b) (2006).
237
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (2006).
238
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)
		(i) (2006).
239
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)
		(ii) (2006).
240
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)
		(iii) (2006).
241
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)
		(2006).
242
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C)
		(2006).
243
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(D)
		(2006).
244
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B)
		(2006).
245
	See generally Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
		
§ 1182(a)(2) & (3) (2006).
246
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(2)
		(2006)

247

	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) (2006).
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)
		(2006).
249
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3)
		(2006).
250
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(4)(A)
		(2006).
251
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) (4)(B)	
		(i), (ii) (2006).
252
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1)
		(2006).
253
	Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(2)
		(2006).
254
	U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2011
		Operations Manual ICE Performance-Based National
		Detention Standards, i (2011) https://www.ice.gov/
		
detention-standards/2011; https://www.ice.gov/doclib/
		
detention-standards/2011/pbnds2011.pdf 
255
	Press Release, National Network for Immigrant and
		Refugee Rights, Detention Watch Network Deplores Latest
		Anti-Immigrant Hearing in Congress, (Apr. 2, 2012),
		
http://www.nnirr.org/drupal/dwnpr.
256
	National Immigrant Justice Center, Policy Brief: ICE’s
		Failed Monitoring of Immigration Detention Contracts, (Oct.
		1, 2016), https://www.immigrantjustice.org/research-items/
	 	policy-brief-ices-failed-monitoring-immigration	 	detention-contracts. (Citing “Authorized DMCP Facilities,”
		obtained via the ICE FOIA Library on Apr. 11, 2016).
257
	Supra, note 254, at 228.
258
	Supra, note 254. at 232.
259
	Supra, note 254, at 232.
260
	Supra, note 254, at 237.
261
	Supra, note 254, at 241.
262
	Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention
		Center on Apr. 16, 2016.
263
	Supra, note 254, at 241.
264
	Supra, note 254, at 241.
265
	Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention
		Center on Sept. 16, 2016.
266
	Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention
		Center on May 4, 2016.
267
	Supra, note 254, at 387.
268
	Supra, note 254, at 387-88.
269
	Supra, note 254, at 388.
270
	Interview by Project South at Irwin on Sept. 24, 2016.
271
	Supra, note 254, at 386.
272
	Supra, note 254, at 387.
273
	Supra, note 254, at 387.
274
	Supra, note 254, at 389.
275
	Supra, note 254, at 394.
276
	Supra, note 254, at 392.
277
	Supra, note 254, at 399.
278
	Supra, note 254, at 399.
279
	Supra, note 254, at 398.
248

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

59

S	 upra, note 254, at 400.
Supra, note 254, at 399.
282
Supra, note 254, at 400.
283
Attempted interviews by Project South at the Stewart
		Detention Center on Nov. 11, 2016 and Feb. 3, 2017.
284
Supra, note 254, at 422.
285
Supra, note 254, at 423.
286
Supra, note 254, at 424.
287
Supra, note 254, at 425.
288
Supra, note 254, at 425.
289
Supra, note 254, at 426.
290
Supra, note 254, at 26.
291
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention
		Center on Oct. 26, 2016.
292
Supra, note 4, at 11.
293
The Geo Group Inc., Our Locations,
		
https://www.geogroup.com/FacilityDetail/FacilityID/203.
294
Id.
295
Id.
296
Id.
297
Corrections Corporation of America (d/b/a CoreCivic),
		
http://www.cca.com/.
298
Naila Awan, The Racial Equity Impact of Secret Political
		Spending by Government Contractors, Demos (Sept. 2, 2015),
		
http://www.demos.org/publication/racial-equity-impact	 	secret-political-spending-government-contractors; Mike
		Elk and Bob Sloan, The Hidden History of ALEC and Prison
		Labor, The Nation (Aug. 1, 2011), https://www.thenation.
	 	com/article/hidden-history-alec-and-prison	 	labor/; Laura Sullivan, Prison Economics Help Drive
		Ariz. Immigration Law, NPR (Oct. 28, 2010), http://
	 	www.npr.org/2010/10/28/130833741/prison		
economics-help-drive-ariz-immigration-law.
299
Id.
300
Elk and Sloan, supra, note 298.
301
Corrections Corporation of America (d/b/a CoreCivic),
		
Stewart Detention Center, http://www.cca.com/facilities/s
	 	tewart-detention-center.
302
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
		
Intergovernmental Service Agreement https://www.ice.gov/
	 	doclib/foia/isa/stewartcountyga.pdf
303
Southern Poverty Law Center, National Lawyers Guild
		National Immigration Project, and Adelante Alabama
		Worker Center, Shadow Prisons: Immigrant Detention in the
		South, 36 (Nov. 2016) https://www.splcenter.org/sites/
		
default/files/ijp_shadow_prisons_immigrant_detention_
		
report.pdf.
304
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Amendment of
		Solicitation and Modification of Contract, https://www.ice.
	 	gov/doclib/foia/isa/r_droigsa060005orderhscedm08fig
	 	010stewartcountygamodification4.pdf.
305
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
		
Amendment of Solicitation and Modification of
		Contract, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/isa/
280
281

60

		
r_droigsa060003orderhsceop06fig00008stewartcounty
	 	gaasofmodification5.pdf.
306
Supra, note 4.
307
Interview by Penn State Law Center for Immigrants’
		Rights Clinic on Oct. 25, 2016.
308
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention
		Center on Aug. 13, 2016 and Nov. 11, 2016.
309
Huffington Post, B. Shaw Drake, Asylum Seekers and
		Immigrants Detained in Georgia Face Insurmountable
		Hurdles to Asylum, Release, and Counsel, http://www.
	 	huffingtonpost.com/b-shaw-drake/asylum-seekers-and	 	immigr_b_11529124.html, see also Southern Poverty
		Law Center, supra, note 303, at 38.
310
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention
		Center on Sept. 16, 2016.
311
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention
		Center on Aug. 13, 2016
312
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Jun. 3, 2016.
313
Lyttle v. United States, 867 F.Supp.2d 1256 (M.D. Ga. 2012).
314
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on May 14, 2016..
315
Interview by Alterna in Guatemala on Jun. 8, 2016.
316
Supra, note 254, at 396.
317
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Aug. 13, 2016.
318
Interview by Penn State Law Center for Immigrants’ Rights
		
Clinic on Sept. 20, 2016.
319
Southern Poverty Law Center, Immigrants Detained in
		Georgia to Get Better Access to Counsel After SPLC
		Complaint, (Sept. 6, 2016), https://www.splcenter.org/
	 	news/2016/09/06/immigrants-detained-georgia-get		
better-access-counsel-after-splc-complaint.
320
Interview by Penn State Law’s Center for Immigrants’ Rights
		Clinic on September 20, 2016.
321
Interview by Penn State Law’s Center for Immigrants’ Rights
		Clinic on September 20, 2016.
322
Interview by Penn State Law’s Center for Immigrants’ Rights
		Clinic on September 22, 2016.
323
Mark Noferi, Deportation Without Representation:
		Immigrants who are detained should have the right to a
		lawyer, Slate (May 15, 2013), http://www.slate.com/articles/
	 	news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/05/the_
	 	immigration_bill_should_include_the_right_to_a_lawyer.
	 	html.
324
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Sept. 16, 2016.
325
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Jun. 3, 2016.
326
Interview by Alterna in Guatemala on Jun. 8, 2016.
327
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Jun. 3, 2016.
328
Immigration Detention Justice Center, Stewart Detention
		Center, (Nov. 8, 2011) http://www.immigrationdetention.

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

		
org/wiki/stewart-detention-center/
329
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Dec. 21, 2016
330
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Aug. 6, 2016
331
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on May 14, 2016.
332
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Apr. 8, 2016.
333
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Apr. 15, 2016.
334
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Apr. 15, 2016.
335
	 Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Jun. 3, 2016.
336
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Jun. 17, 2016.
337
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on May 14, 2016.
338
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Aug. 13, 2016 and Nov. 11, 2016.
339
Interview by the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants’
		Rights Clinic on Sept. 20, 2016.
340
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on May 14, 2016.
341
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Apr. 8, 2016.
342
Anton Flores and Professor Jennifer Brooks, Immigrants
		Rights Detention and Activism, Working History (2016),
		
https://soundcloud.com/southernlaborstudies/immi
		
grant-rights-detentions-and-activism.
343
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Apr. 29, 2016.
344
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Apr. 29, 2016.
345
Supra, note 342.
346
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Apr. 15, 2016.
347
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Sept. 9, 2016.
348
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Jan. 6, 2017.
349
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Enforcement and
		Removal Operations, Atlanta Field Office, Stewart Detention
		Center, Lumpkin, Georgia, (Aug. 21, 2012), https://www.ice.
	 	gov/doclib/foia/odo-compliance-inspections/2012stewart_
		
detntn_cntr_lumpkin_GA_aug21-23-2012.pdf.
350
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Jun. 17, 2016.
351
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Nov. 16, 2016.
352
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Aug. 13, 2016 and Nov. 11, 2016.
353
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center

		on Jun. 17, 2016.
354
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Aug., 13 2016.
355
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Apr. 16, 2016.
356
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		and Aiken County Detention Center on Jun. 3, 2016 and
		Jan. 26, 2017.
357
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Performance
		Base National Detention Standards 2011, 177 (2011), https://
		
www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2011/pbnds2011.
	 	pdf.
358
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Nov. 2, 2016.
359
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Dec. 21, 2016.
360
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Apr. 29, 2016.
361
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Aug. 13, 2016.
362
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Sept.16, 2016.
363
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Nov. 16, 2016.
364
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Oct. 26, 2016.
365
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Nov. 16, 2016.
366
Azadeh Shahshahani and Anton Flores, Living Nightmare for
		Detained Immigrants in Georgia, Huffington Post (Nov. 23,
		2014), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/azadeh-shahshahani/
		
living-nightmare-for-deta_b_6208916.html; see also ACLU
		of Georgia, Georgia Immigrant Detainees “Riot” Over Mag
		got-Filled Food, (Jun. 26, 2014) https://www.acluga.org/en/
	 	news/Georgia-Immigrant-Detainees-Riot-Over-Mag
	 	got-Filled-Food.
367
Id.
368
Roque Planas, Undocumented Immigrants Decry Solitary
		Confinement at Georgia Detention Center, Huffington Post
		(Oct. 14, 2015), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/
		
immigrants-solitary-confinement-georgia-detention-center_
	 	us_561d83cbe4b0c5a1ce61044d.
369
Id.
370
Press Release, Project South, Georgia Detention Watch
		Calls For The Immediate Release Of The Detained Stateless
		Palestinian, (May 12, 2015), http://projectsouth.org/gdw	 	release-alaa-yasin/.
371
Id.
372
Id.
373
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Nov. 11, 2016.
374
Spensor Woodman, Exclusive: ICE Put Detained Immigrants
		in Solitary confinement for Hunger Strike, The Verge (Feb.
		27, 2017), http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/27/14728978/

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

61

	 	immigrant-deportation-hunger-strike-solitary		
confinement-ice-trump.
375
Id.
376
Id.
377
Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Sept. 9, 2016.
378
Supra, note 374.
379
Supra, note 374.
380
	Interview by Project South at the Stewart Detention Center
		on Dec. 21, 2016.
381
Available at: https://www.ice.gov/detention-facility/ir
		
win-county-detention-center.
382
LaSalle Corrections, (Last updated 2017), http://www.
	 	lasallecorrections.com/locations/georgia/irwin-county	 	detention-center/?back=locations
383
Id.
384
Id.
385
Id.
386
Irwin Tour Documents, on file with author.
387
Interview by Penn State Law’s Center for Immigrants’ Rights
		Clinic on September 20, 2016.
388
Id.
389
Detained immigrant interview
390
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jun. 6, 2016.
391
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jun. 6, 2016.
392
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 7, 2016.
393
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 10, 2016.
394
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Sept. 24,2016 and Oct. 21, 2016.
395
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Nov. 12, 2016.
396
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 14, 2016.
397
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 14, 2016.
398
Interview by Penn State Law’s Center for Immigrants’ Rights
		Clinic on Sept. 20, 2016.
399
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jun. 30, 2016.
400
Irwin County Detention Center Detained Immigrants
		Handbook, at 11 (Jun. 2016)
401
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Sept. 24 ,2016 and Oct. 21, 2016.
402
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 1, 2016.
403
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 7, 2016.
404
Irwin Tour Documents, on file with author.
405
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Video
		Teleconference Technology for Attorney/Client Meetings at

62

		Irwin County Detention Center, (Jan. 2017).
Supra, note 400, at 52.
407
Id.
408
Id.
409
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jun. 8, 2016.
410
Supra, note 257, at 411.
411
Supra, note 400, at 52.
412
Supra, note 400, at 52.
413
Supra, note 400, at 52.
414
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 7, 2016.
415
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 1 ,2016.
416
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 20, 2016.
417
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 7, 2016.
418
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 7, 2017.
419
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 10, 2016.
420
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Sept. 24, 2016.
421
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 7, 2016.
422
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 1, 2016.
423
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Sept. 24, 2016.
424
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Oct. 6, 2016.
425
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 20, 2016.
426
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 1, 2016.
427
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 10, 2016.
428
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Aug. 31, 2016.
429
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 1, 2016.
430
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Aug. 31, 2016.
431
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 7, 2016.
432
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 20, 2016.
433
Supra, note 257, at 238.
434
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 1, 2016.
435
Supra, note 400, at 9.
436
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 7, 2016.
406

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

437

Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Aug. 31, 2016.
438
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 20, 2016.
439
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Aug. 31, 2016.
440
Interview by Project south at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Sept. 24, 2016.
441
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jun. 11, 2016 and Jul. 1, 2016.
442
Interview by Alterna in Guatemala on Jun. 8, 2016.
443
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jun.11, 2016 and Jul. 1, 2016.
444
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Nov. 12, 2016.
445
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 1, 2016.
446
Irwin Tour Documents, on file with author.
447
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
		International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
		
Article 10, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/
	 	Pages/CCPR.aspx.
448
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 14, 2016.
449
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 7, 2016.
450
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jun. 8, 2016.
451
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Oct.21, 2016.
452
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Aug. 31, 2016.
453
	 Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 1, 2016.
454
	 Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Aug. 31, 2016.
455
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Nov. 11, 2016.
456
United States Department of Justice, Report and
		Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing,
		99 (2016), https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/file/815551/
		
download.
457
Irwin Tour Documents on file with author.
458
Id.
459
Id.
460
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jun. 11, 2016 and Jul. 1, 2016.
461
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 1, 2016.
462
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 1, 2016.
463
Irwin Tour Documents on file with author.
464
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Aug. 31, 2016.

465

Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jul. 10, 2016.
466
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Aug. 31, 2016.
467
Interview by Project South at the Irwin County Detention
		Center on Jun. 30, 2016.
468
Supra, note 211.
469
Southern Poverty Law Center, et al, supra, note 303; ACLU
		of Georgia, et al, supra, note 30, at 5.
470
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Detention
		Guidelines: Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and
		Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers
		and Alternatives to Detention, 29 (2012), http://www.
		
unhcr.org/en-us/publications/legal/505b10ee9/
		
unhcr-detention-guidelines.html

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers

63

IN COLLABORATION WITH

A special student project of: