Immigration Article of the Day: Dignity Not Detention: How States Can Prohibit Immigration Detention Contracts And Why They Should by Sophia Genovese
Dignity Not Detention: How States Can Prohibit Immigration Detention Contracts And Why They Should by Sophia Genovese
Abstract
Immigration detention enables mass deportations. Without the ability to hold people in a centralized location, the government is incapable of deporting people en masse. Therefore, a strategy to combat mass deportations is to abolish detention. In the wake of large-scale federal immigration enforcement, states have a tremendous opportunity to fight alongside immigrant communities. Although states cannot regulate federal activities, states can refuse to be complicit in detention and deportation by prohibiting its subdivisions from entering into intergovernmental service agreements (IGSAs) with the federal government for civil immigration detention. The federal government is dependent upon IGSAs for detention capacity - totaling in over a third of all immigration detention contracts and over half of the total bed space available for immigration detention nationwide. If states pass IGSA bans, it would result in a significant reduction in the overall bed space available to ICE to detain immigrants, fewer people being subjected to tortuous conditions of confinement, and reduce overall deportations. This Article provides an overview of ICE detention contracts, exposes ICE's nefarious practices through pass-through contracting schemes, explores the impacts of detention and deportation on communities, outlines the legality of IGSA bans and contract termination provisions without running afoul of the Supremacy Clause or Contract Clause, and argues why IGSA bans are good public policy. IGSA bans are but one of many strategies to abolish immigration detention and deportation. IGSA bans are not a panacea, but are a vital strategy in the overall struggle for immigrant justice.
