California still has no plan to vaccinate immigrants in detention

After months of advocacy and outreach by advocates, it appears the state of California still has no plan in place to vaccinate immigrants in detention. This is according to multiple reports that emerged this month in which state officials were unable to answer whether California has developed a strategy to vaccinate immigrants in detention, following reports that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was abdicating the responsibility to states. 

The campaign to clarify the status of vaccinations in California’s ICE detention facilities began in December, with advocates sending a letter to state officials and California’s Community Vaccine Advisory Committee, seeking clarification on the status of immigrants in detention concerning the vaccine roll-out. After this first letter went unanswered, advocates sent a follow-up letter that noted recent statements made by ICE that it would be up to states to vaccinate those in immigrant detention. 

The letter included the following asks: 

• Does the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) share ICE’s position that it is ultimately responsible for determining when immigrant detention facilities in California receive the COVID-19 vaccine? 

• Has CDPH or local public health departments engaged in conversations or planning with ICE with respect to vaccine distribution? 

• What plans are in place to bridge the serious challenge of lack of trust and information concerning medical access and vaccine distribution for those in these facilities? 

• What is the proposed timeline to provide clarity with respect to a distribution plan or answers to any of the questions above?

Hamid Yazdan Panah, with Immigrant Defense Advocates, one of the organizations leading the campaign, expressed frustration in an interview with the Desert Sun. “It’s clear that public health authorities at the state and local level have at least some role to play, whether it’s providing the vaccine or simply being involved in the coordination and distribution of the vaccine. At the very least, public health officials have a role in providing information and education to individuals involved in these facilities.”

Advocates were not the only ones who raised the issue with the state. A delegation of 19 state lawmakers sent a letter to the Governor seeking answers on the status of the vaccine for immigrant detention facilities. 

The letter was led by California State Senator Maria Elena Durazo, a Democrat representing parts of Los Angeles, who told the Desert Sun, "The only way to know that it's going to be done is if there is an explicit plan that lays out how and who is going to do it, and how are all of these vaccinations going to be administered," she said. "I have a greater trust in the state than in these facilities, but I just want to make sure there's a plan to make sure it gets done."

In addition to the letters, the issue of vaccinations was raised directly with Governor Gavin Newsom by the Desert Sun. With the outlet reporting, “Gov. Gavin Newsom deflected a question about the issue during a press conference Wednesday in Coachella. He instead pivoted to discussing vaccination efforts in the state prison system, where people are being inoculated according to state guidelines.”

The Governor was not the only state official unable to provide clarity on the issue. California's Surgeon General, Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, sought to respond to the issue during the Community Vaccine Advisory Committee on February 17th, flagging the numerous questions and public comments that had been raised about immigrants in detention. In response to the question, Burke Harris stated: “The answer right now is, I don’t know,” she said. “There are some really complex, jurisdictional issues that are at play, and so, for today, I don’t have an answer for you.”

The inability to obtain a response from state officials was further compounded by statements provided by local counties. An excellent report written by CalMatters on the issue included direct responses from officials in San Bernardino County, home of the notorious Adelanto detention facility, the largest immigrant detention facility in the state. The article notes:

According to the county, the Adelanto facility, operated by The Geo Group, Inc., isn’t required to provide the health department with numbers on positive cases, deaths, or vaccinations. 

“The county has reached out to the facility on occasion to offer assistance with testing and other COVID-related matters, but all indications have been that they feel they are capable of caring for their people on their own,” a county spokesperson said.

Yazdan Panah summed up the frustration felt by advocates waiting for answers and hearing seemingly contradictory reports, telling CalMatters: “A year into this pandemic, and we still have so much confusion. It boggles my mind that we’re unable to get a decisive (vaccination) plan.”

You can find out more information about advocacy to ensure immigrants in detention receive the COVID-19 vaccine here.

When will California vaccinate immigrants in detention?

The roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine has raised numerous questions with respect to equity and access, particularly for vulnerable populations and communities. Discussions regarding vulnerable populations have included incarcerated individuals, who are held in facilities that have been hit particularly hard by the virus. As states make preparations to roll out the vaccine, one question looms large for immigrant advocates, when will immigrants in detention have access to the COVID-19 vaccine? 

Many advocates had assumed that immigrants held in federal custody would be prioritized for vaccinations, with more than 15,000 thousand immigrants in detention, and more than 8,000 having been infected by COVID. Experts have joined a chorus of voices calling for immediate action to protect the lives of those in these facilities. According to Peter Lurie, a former associate of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), individuals in ICE custody are at higher risk than average citizens. "The situation for people detained by ICE is dire. Folks are being infected at a rate probably 13 times higher than the general population. They should be high priority people for vaccination."

The assumption has also been that those in federal custody would have direct access to the federal stockpile of vaccines. Yet these assumptions have proven to be premature, with ICE seeming to indicate that it would leave it up to states to decide when immigrants in detention will get the vaccine. 

To date, ICE has refused to provide details on their plans to offer the vaccine to the individuals currently held in detention, despite reportedly promising to guarantee everyone in custody access. In a recent interview, Executive Associate Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations. Henry Lucero, told reporters, that the agency is working with state and local public health departments on vaccinations, but declined to provide a “direct timeline” for vaccinating detainees. “We're working with state and local health departments to ensure that the ICE detainee population is not forgotten about and that ultimately they get vaccinated should they choose to do so.”

Reports indicate that ICE will instead prioritize vaccinating personnel and medical staff in detention facilities, despite evidence indicating that those vaccinated can still spread the virus to others that they come in contact with.

In response to federal inaction, advocates in California have launched a campaign directed at state officials asking for clarity with respect to the status of immigrants detained in the six facilities located in the state. 

The letter, led by Immigrant Defense Advocates and supported by Immigrant Legal Defense and dozens of partner organizations, notes the importance of providing access and a meaningful choice to immigrants in detention with respect to the vaccine, citing a recently adopted policy by the American Medical Association in support of improved health measures of prioritizing vaccine access to vulnerable individuals in immigrant detention. The policy notes, “Recognizing that detention center and correctional workers, incarcerated people, and detained immigrants are at high risk for COVID-19, the new policy also makes clear that these individuals should be prioritized in receiving access to safe, effective COVID-19 vaccines in the initial phases of distribution.”

In addition to recapping the dire situation in immigrant detention facilities in California, and emphasizing the role that the state is entitled to play in protecting the health and safety of those in detention, the letter included the following concrete demands: 

1. California must include immigrant detention facilities located in the state of California in any plan related to securing our communities. 

2. The Drafting Guidelines Workgroup, and the Community Advisory Vaccine Committee should meet with stakeholders on the issue of immigrant detention, including detained and impacted individuals, community organizations, and experts on immigration detention.

3. California must do everything in its power to protect the health and safety of individuals in these facilities, including prioritizing their access to the COVID-19 vaccine, while providing them an informed choice with respect to any decisions related to vaccination. 

The letter also highlights the importance of providing immigrants with detention information and resources from a source other than ICE, in order to establish trust. The letter also includes a statement from individuals inside detention, interviewed by the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice inside the Golden State Detention Facility. “The vaccine should be available, especially because there are elderly people here and people who are vulnerable. But people want to get it from someone outside, not ICE. We need someone to come in and educate on what the vaccine is, someone that people trust.”

To date, advocates have not received a direct response from California’s Community Vaccine Advisory Committee, which has been formed to provide “input and feedback to the planning efforts and resolving barriers to equitable vaccine implementation and decision-making.”

California is home to what was at one point the largest outbreak of COVID-19 in any ICE facility, with more than a hundred individuals in the Otay Mesa Detention Facility being infected with the virus. Tragically, California is also home to the first death from COVID-19, with Carlos Escobar Mejia passing away in Otay Mesa in May of 2020. His fellow detainees penned an open letter shortly after his death and demanded action and assistance. 

“We are all trapped in here and it is only a matter of time before everyone in this facility gets sick and before we lose another human being’s life. Many correctional officers have quit because of the negligence in controlling the virus and unprofessionalism by Otay Mesa Detention Center. Does that not shine a light on the fact that this facility should not be opened and that this is a modern-day Auschwitz?

Lastly, we would like to add that due to the gross negligence and blatant disregard for human life shown by Core Civic and its medical staff, fellow detainee, and to many of us, friend, Mr. Carlos Escobar Mejia is now dead. This is a cry for help.”

AB 32 and the Future of Immigration Detention in California

On October 9th, a federal judge ruled that AB 32, a California law that bans the use of privately operated prisons and immigration detention facilities, is largely constitutional in a landmark decision with broad implications. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino, found that AB 32 only regulates private prison operators and thus does not interfere with the federal government's operations. The ruling is a major blow to private prison corporations and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), both of whom sued California after Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 32 into law in October of 2019. 

AB 32 bans the use of all private detention facilities in the state and requires all facilities to close upon the completion of their contracts. At the time of the bill’s signing, multiple immigration detention facilities were slated to close in 2020 until ICE and private prison companies signed new contracts for the four private facilities in operation in the state. The contracts secured just weeks before the January 1 start date for the law were slammed by advocates and Congressional officials as an illicit scheme to circumvent the law. 

Following the signing of those contracts, the GEO Group Inc., the second largest private prison corporation in the world, and ICE sued the state of California and asked a federal court to strike down AB 32 as unlawful. GEO also asked the court to find that the contracts they signed with the federal government were valid. The contracts at issue were reported to be five-year contracts, with two additional five-year options totaling fifteen years and valued in the billions of dollars. GEO specifically asked the court to deem the full fifteen-year terms of the various contracts as valid under AB 32 despite the bill not allowing for contract extensions. 

In anticipation of the hearing, Immigrant Legal Defense (ILD) and Immigrant Defense Advocates (IDA) filed an amicus brief with the court, which underscored the GEO Group’s history of bad faith behavior in the state of California and specifically challenged the validity of the contracts signed in December 2019, urging the court not to uphold them as valid. 

In a 75-page decision, Judge Sammartino noted that California has the right to regulate conditions of confinement and protect the health and safety of individuals in detention, writing, “The regulation of health and safety matters is primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern” and noted AB 32 “appears to be a regulation ensuring the health and welfare of inmates and detainees within California’s borders.”

With respect to the contracts at issue, Sammartino appears to have agreed with arguments raised by ILD and IDA in their brief, arguing that her court did not have jurisdiction to decide the fate of the contracts. “The Court continues to harbor some doubts—although styled as a claim against the State of California, GEO’s fourth cause of action, at heart, seeks a “declaration of contract rights against the government,” over which the Court would lack jurisdiction.”

Despite her noted reservation, Sammartino took up the issue and denied GEO’s request to find the additional five-year options in the contracts as valid under AB 32. “It appears unlikely that GEO will succeed in arguing that the options are not such extensions,” she wrote. 

In her final decision, Sammartino did exempt the application of AB 32 to facilities operated by the U.S. Marshals Service, finding that the law would serve as an obstacle to the federal government in their capacity to contract with private operators to detain prisoners in federal custody. Sammartino pointed to explicit statutory language authorizing the U.S. Marshals to pursue such contracts as a basis for her ruling, noting that no equivalent Congressional authority exists concerning ICE’s power to detain individuals in civil immigration detention. 

Advocates and organizers celebrated the legal victory as a major win for those who have fought to pass AB 32 and worked to close detention facilities in the state. Jackie Gonzalez, Policy Director for Immigrant Defense Advocates, told the Desert Sun, “This bill is part of a broader strategy to end all forms of unnecessary detention. We feel vindicated by the court upholding California’s authority to protect the health and welfare of detained individuals, who for far too long have been subjected to horrid abuses by these corporations.”

The Future of Detention in California and Beyond

The ruling is the latest chapter in an ongoing battle between advocates and private prison corporations in California over what a state can and cannot do with respect to the regulation of private detention facilities. Over the years, California has passed notable pieces of legislation to curb immigrant detention and protect those detained, including SB 29, which prevents local states and counties from contracting with ICE, and AB 103, which allows the Attorney General to inspect detention facilities. Each of these bills has faced legal challenges as part of a tug-of-war over the detention of immigrants. 

AB 32 preceded a push by ICE and private prison corporations to expand private bed space in the state after multiple California counties decided to end their contracts with ICE to house immigrants in local jails. Advocates have long argued that closing detention facilities and eliminating bed space could serve as a deterrent to ICE enforcement and detention. 

After AB 32 was signed into law, many lauded it as “a model for the nation”, while ICE and GEO moved quickly to undercut its viability, lest other states follow suit. However, with this month's ruling, GEO and ICE received a double blow, not only losing in their bid to strike down AB 32 but facing the prospect that the fifteen-year contracts that they tried so hard to secure may now face serious legal jeopardy. 

The ruling by Judge Sammartino will almost certainly be appealed, and while the main focus will be the constitutionality of AB 32, the validity of the contracts in question is no small matter. Under the current ruling, the California Attorney General may choose to enforce AB 32 against private facilities after the completion of the first five-year term of the contracts. This could result in a scenario in which ICE will be forced to shut down five out of the six detention facilities in the state by 2025. 

To further complicate matters, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has gone on record saying his administration will “make clear that the federal government should not use private facilities for any detention, including detention of undocumented immigrants.” As a result, the future of these facilities may be at issue even sooner than five years, particularly given the scrutiny of the contracts received last fall by elected officials at the federal level. The solicitation of the contracts was the subject of a congressional letter signed by U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Senator Kamala D. Harris (D-CA), among others, which challenged the legality and manner of the federal procurement process. 

Putting California aside, the ruling also allows the bill to stand as a model for other states, meaning that even if Trump remains in office, the potential exists for other states to pass legislation designed to close both private prisons and civil detention facilities. The arguments in favor of this type of state action are further bolstered by the COVID-19 pandemic and the failure of ICE and private operators to protect the health and safety of those in detention. 

While advocates, organizers, and detainees continue their fight against private operators and ICE, one thing is for certain: California is not only the front line for the fight to end private detention but stands as a north star for other states to follow.

Forced Hysterectomies Underscore Horrors of Immigrant Detention

For years, advocates, attorneys, and impacted individuals have detailed horrific conditions at ICE detention facilities across the country. These include reports of abuse, negligence, violence, and racism and have raised serious questions about the punitive nature of immigration detention. Last month, a shocking whistleblower report by a nurse working in a private ICE detention center stated that ICE was involved in forced hysterectomies against women at these facilities. The report has renewed national interest and scrutiny not only on ICE detention conditions but also on policies and practices that many view as rooted in racism and genocide.   

This was part of a broader report on inhumane detention conditions inside an ICE facility during the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially covered by The Intercept, the report focused largely on complaints brought forth by Dawn Wooten, a nurse employed at the Irwin County Detention Center in Georgia, run by the private corporation LaSalle Corrections. The report states that the private operator underreported COVID-19 cases, exposed detainees and staff to the virus, and failed to exercise proper care with respect to medical care and conditions inside the facility. 

In addition to the charges of medical neglect, Wooten was also involved in a formal complaint filed with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General by the advocacy group Project South, which alleges that hysterectomies had been performed on five women detained in the facility without “proper informed consent.” 

“Everybody he sees has a hysterectomy — just about everybody,” Wooten says in the complaint. “I’ve had several inmates tell me that they’ve been to see the doctor, and they’ve had hysterectomies, and they don’t know why they went or why they’re going.”

After the press picked up the report, the AP published a follow-up story with additional women coming forward to document unwanted medical procedures by Dr. Mahendra Amin, the gynecologist alleged to have been involved in the forced hysterectomies against detained women. The report noted that a review of medical records indicated that despite evidence that some of the procedures may have been justifiable, the lack of consent or knowledge by the detained women presented serious legal and ethical issues.

Andrew Free, a civil rights attorney involved in investigating the claims, told the AP, “The indication is there’s a systemic lack of truly informed and legally valid consent to perform procedures that could ultimately result – intentionally or unintentionally – in sterilization.” 

The complaints against ICE and the LaSalle Corporation are now the subject of congressional inquiries. 

Private Negligence and Public Harm 

The claims arising out of the Irwin County Detention Center in Georgia are not only indicative of the dismal conditions immigrants face in ICE detention but also underscore the problematic nature of private detention operators and the facilities they run. According to some estimates, as much as 70% of immigrants nationwide are detained in facilities operated by private for-profit corporations. Private prison stocks rose 100% when Trump was elected, and many advocates have argued that these corporations influence policies that lead to the expansion of detention and prisons. 

These corporations are often incentivized to cut costs and endanger the health and safety of immigrants in order to maximize their profits. The use of these for-profit entities as quasi-extensions of the federal government is at the heart of the failures of accountability and oversight typical of ICE detention. These operators are allowed to function as extensions of the government in detention while avoiding the oversight and transparency requirements associated with governmental agencies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the longstanding failures related to medical care and safety in for-profit detention facilities. Numerous widespread outbreaks of COVID-19 have taken place in for-profit facilities, with courts and judges noting that private operators have routinely flouted proper protocols to protect health and safety, leaving both detainees and even their own employees at serious risk. 

The lack of transparency and accountability in these facilities has unfortunately created a perfect storm for horrific acts of medical misconduct and negligence, including the reported forced hysterectomies and rampant COVID-19 outbreaks. 

Genocide

The reports of forced sterilization against immigrant women not only elicited shock, condemnation, and immediate calls for an investigation but have drawn comparisons to the systematic sterilization of other vulnerable groups, with some arguing that the practice meets international definitions of genocide. 

https://twitter.com/jewishaction/status/1305641182173814785

The forced medical procedures allegedly perpetrated against immigrant women cannot and should not be viewed as isolated incidents or acts of negligence by an individual doctor or detention operator. Instead, the reports should be situated within the broader framework of immigration policies that criminalize, terrorize, and dehumanize immigrants and people of color in this country.

The Trump administration’s open hostility towards immigrants and reluctance to distance itself from ideas connected with white supremacy now provide a clear nexus between immigration policies and ideas once relegated to the past, such as the forced sterilization of ethnic minorities in order to maintain ideas related to social purity and power. 

Historians have detailed the forced sterilization of more than 20,000 men and women in  California and discussed the parallels between the practice and policies related to immigration and segregation in the United States. Policies that were motivated by and reinforced white supremacy and genocide in this country. 

The reports of forced sterilization, when viewed alongside current immigration policies including the separation of immigrant children from their families, the use of ICE raids to invoke fear, and the systematic attempt to deprive immigrant families of benefits and social support, indicate a concerted effort to destroy immigrant communities and particularly those of color. 

As advocates continue to challenge the various injustices perpetrated by the immigration system in the United States, the reports of forced sterilization are further proof that the current detention system in this country is ripe for abolition. 

California Passes AB 3228 Bill To Protect Immigrants in Detention

On Sunday, September 27th, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 3228, a bill focused on accountability and human rights in private detention facilities, including those used to hold immigrants. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Oakland), is the first of its kind in the nation and requires all private detention operators to adhere to the standards of care in their facility’s contract for operations. The bill allows any individual harmed due to a breach of those standards to bring suit in state court against a private operator. 

The bill not only covers private prisons but will apply to the five private immigrant detention facilities in the state of California, including the Mesa Verde, Adelanto, and Golden State detention facilities owned and operated by the GEO Group, as well as the Otay Mesa detention facility owned and operated by CoreCivic, and the Imperial detention facility operated by the Management and Training Corporation. With nearly 90% of the state’s detained population held in private facilities, the bill is set to have an impact on what many believe is a broken system of oversight and regulation.  

To discuss the bill further and its impact, ILD sat down with Jackie Gonzalez, Policy Director for Immigrant Defense Advocates (IDA), who sponsored AB 3228. 

ILD was proud to support AB 3228, and we congratulate IDA on the bill, which is now officially part of California's laws. Can you summarize the bill and its impact?

The bill provides a layer of accountability with respect to what takes place in private detention facilities in California, which includes both prisons and civil detention facilities. Study after study has shown that private prison companies place their profits over the health and safety of those in their custody. This bill says that the state of California fully expects private detention facilities to follow the standards of care they agree to in their contracts. It says that they can take that company to state court whenever someone is harmed based on a violation of these standards. We have seen time and again that these companies are solely motivated by profit, so the bill takes them to task and attempts to impose financial consequences for their behavior. 

The bill is significant because it allows the state of California to ensure accountability and basic standards for immigrants being held in private detention facilities. California as a state cannot interfere in the execution of federal immigration laws, and it cannot stop the federal government from detaining individuals. However, there is a clear argument that if a private corporation contracting with the federal government violates the terms of its contract and causes harm, they are no longer acting as an extension of the federal government but simply as a private bad actor, and the state can and should be able to regulate them. In addition to that, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that California has the right to regulate the conditions of confinement for individuals in our state, including those in immigrant detention facilities, so this bill builds upon that legal precedent in order to further protect the health and safety of anyone who is in a private detention facility. 

While it is true that, arguably, individuals could already bring certain claims against these private companies before this bill is passed, the bill clarifies what standard of care should be relevant in any legal proceeding and paves the way for accountability when individuals seek justice. 

Can you tell us about the genesis of this bill and why this was a priority for this year?

With support from ILD and other advocates, this bill was introduced by Assemblymember Rob Bonta, who we worked with last year on AB 32. It is a groundbreaking bill to eventually ban all private detention facilities in California. That bill passed and went into effect January 1, 2020. On the state side, California made its promise and closed nearly all its privately operated facilities, save for one women’s prison. The bill would have also resulted in the closure of multiple immigrant detention facilities this year, including Adelanto and Mesa Verde, but ICE and private prison corporations circumvented federal and state law and signed 15-year contracts days before the bill’s enactment in order to prolong the lifespan of those facilities. The legality of AB 32 and those contracts are currently in litigation, but while those issues were being settled, Assemblymember Bonta announced that he wanted to do a bill focused on the abhorrent conditions in facilities that remained open, as we all know that poor conditions in these facilities are a major and ongoing issue. We worked with him early in the year to try to think about how we could address the situation and the complete lack of accountability in these facilities. 

For example, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security has found that ICE itself, despite having a set of national standards of care that govern how individuals should be treated in detention, does nothing when these standards are violated. So, we tried to think about how we could tackle that issue in a way that would protect the rights of individuals in custody and create real consequences for these private corporations and their behavior.

This was before the COVID pandemic really took off, but once it did, the need for the bill and the egregiousness of the conditions in detention became more and more of a pressing issue – particularly as the largest outbreak of COVID-19 in any private immigrant detention facility, as well as the first COVID-19 related death in ICE custody, both happened at the Otay Mesa detention facility here in California. From there, we had an increased sense of urgency to make sure that California passed this bill this year, as people’s lives were literally on the line. 

It seems like California continues to be on the front lines of fighting the Trump administration's inhumane policies on immigration. What is your take on that? 

As a project that does state-level policy related to immigration detention, I am thankful that we are in a state that has a tradition of not only dissent but also lawmakers and elected officials who are motivated to push the envelope on what is possible. There are a lot of exciting policies that California has led the way on in the fight to protect the lives and dignity of immigrants, including SB 54, SB 29, AB 103, AB 32, and now AB 3228. As a state and as advocates, we are facing unprecedented times and challenges and must be willing to dream big and fight for our communities. 

COVID-19 has fundamentally changed all of our lives; how has it affected the lives of immigrants in detention? 

Immigration detention conditions and the lack of humanity within the detention system have always been horrifying. With COVID-19, it is worse than ever. As a detained individual, you are held in a facility, away from your family, by a corporation that gets paid for every day you are in there and makes money off of your labor, all while a pandemic begins to unfold. It is a nightmare scenario. I can’t imagine what it feels like to wait for the virus to enter the facility, knowing that there is no meaningful way to socially distance or to protect yourself. People are understandably terrified and begin to get really desperate. It is heartbreaking because the reality is that those people who are waiting for their day in immigration court do not need to be detained. There is no reason for them to be in detention, period. 

What we saw here in California – and, in fact, across the country – is that retaliation and abuse have gone way up in these facilities simply for protesting the horrid conditions of confinement. We had a particularly egregious case in Otay Mesa where CoreCivic reportedly tried to get detainees to sign legal waivers before giving them proper protective gear, and after they protested, they were pepper sprayed by guards.

Another piece related to AB 3228 is that ICE has released a set of mandatory requirements that all detention facilities should abide by to protect against COVID-19 infection, including very specific requirements related to working with local public health authorities. Unfortunately, based on preliminary research, we have seen that this is simply not happening. These corporations are not making any real attempt to comply with these requirements. Many people don’t realize that a massive COVID-19 outbreak at these facilities affects not only staff and individuals inside but can actually result in local hospitals being overwhelmed, which can threaten the surrounding community's public health. So, there is a really strong argument that if we are going to protect public health effectively during this pandemic, it is incumbent on the state to tackle COVID-19 in all of these facilities.

As attorneys who have done detention work for many years, ILD attorneys have seen and heard horrific stories about immigrant detention from our clients over the years. However, the recent news about forced sterilizations is particularly terrifying and heartbreaking. Does this bill help stop similar types of abuses? 

The reports I have seen to date about that tragic situation have been limited to Georgia, but they did take place in a private detention facility. If a similar situation were to take place here in California, it would be covered by this bill as a clear violation of detention standards. We hope AB 3228 can be a model for other states to follow in order to ensure accountability by these private operators. 

There is so much abuse going on, and such a clear failure in terms of oversight that states should be motivated to pass this kind of legislation. 

Your organization refers to itself as an abolitionist. What does that mean in the context of recent California bills related to detention?

Well, I think for us, abolition is both an ideology and a strategy, but we can summarize it with respect to our work and this bill by saying that we, along with ILD and other advocates, want to end immigrant detention. Period. The goal for AB 32 and AB 3228 is to end the practice of private detention and challenge people's fundamental assumptions about immigration detention and why it's even necessary.

Many organizations and people are working on abolition as a concept with respect to issues related to mass incarceration, and we hope to follow their example and work.

Some may view a bill like AB3228 as an attempt to improve the conditions within detention facilities, make them more tolerable, and thus prolong or make detention more acceptable. Others may think that by focusing on private detention, we are arguing that government-run detention facilities are better or preferable. That is not the case. We believe that AB 3228 will expose the reality that private detention facilities cannot comply with regulations or standardization. We believe it will expose the systematic failures of that industry as a whole and eventually lead to its demise in California. While we don’t believe that government-run detention facilities are better, the reality is that the profit motive that exists is driving mass incarceration in this country. It should be targeted and challenged as part of the broader movement going on in this country towards the end of detention for all.