Locked Away: Immigration Detainees in Jails in the United States

• NCJ Number: 178530
• Journal: Human Rights Watch Volume: 10 Issue: 1 (G) Dated: September 1998 Pages: 1-86
• Author(s): Jennifer Bailey
• Date Published: 1998
• Length: 86 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) houses more than 60 percent of its 15,000 detainees in local jails throughout the United States; faced with an overwhelming demand for detention space, the INS has transferred control of its detainees to local sheriffs and other jail officials without ensuring national and international standards requiring humane treatment and adequate conditions are met.

Abstract

INS detainees, including asylum seekers, are being held in jails entirely inappropriate to their non-criminal status where they may be mixed with criminal inmates and where they are sometimes subjected to physical mistreatment and grossly inadequate confinement conditions. INS detainees are in administrative detention because they are not serving a criminal sentence or awaiting trial on criminal charges. In particular, asylum seekers are protected by international refugee laws and deserve special treatment. Although they should not be held in local jails, the INS does not differentiate between asylum seekers and other immigration detainees and they are sent to jails without regard to their particular legal and psychological needs. In 1997 and 1998, Human Rights Watch interviewed more than 200 INS detainees in 14 local jails in 7 different states. The group found the INS failed to provide oversight or to insist on humane conditions and treatment in local jails where INS detainees were housed. Jail officials stated INS detainees were treated just the same as regular inmates. Medical and dental services were substandard in many of the jails holding INS detainees, and access to legal representatives, families, and friends was severely curtailed by strict jail rules that were inappropriate for INS detainees. Further, jail staff were often unable to communicate with INS detainees due to language barriers. Consideration is paid to alternatives to detention and to the legal status and rights of detainees. Recommendations to improve facilities for INS detainees are offered, and one of the most significant is that detention facilities used by the INS should reflect the non-criminal status of INS detainees. 332 footnotes