Los Angeles Times
By Kate Linthicum
May 31, 2014
Luis
Segura, a construction worker from El Salvador facing deportation,
recently spent more than six months behind bars at an immigrant
detention center in the Mojave
Desert. His stay, at $118 a night, cost taxpayers about $22,000.
A
few months ago, with his case still pending, Segura was released from
detention on condition that he wear a GPS tracking device on his ankle
and check in twice a week
with parole officers. The cost: about $8 a day.
With
immigrant detention levels at their highest point in history — last
year, the government spent roughly $2 billion to detain more than
400,000 people — there is a
growing push for cheaper alternatives.
Last
fall, dozens of members of Congress asked President Obama to do away
with a quota that requires the government to pay for 34,000 beds in
detention centers each night.
Instead, they urged greater use of ankle bracelets and various types of
electronic and in-person monitoring programs.
Advocates
from groups as diverse as the American Civil Liberties Union and the
conservative Heritage Foundation have come out in support of such
alternatives. According
to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, about 90% of
immigrants in those programs comply with the requirements and show up
for required court hearings.
Though
Obama has not moved to eliminate the detention quota, his 2015 budget
proposal for the Department of Homeland Security signals a shift.
The
proposal calls for a reduction to about 30,500 beds per night, which
would save $185 million annually. At the same time, the administration
is calling for a slight
increase to about $94 million in funding for the alternative programs.
Ruth
Epstein, legislative policy analyst with the ACLU, said Obama should go
further. She called the detention mandate "massive micromanaging on the
part of Congress"
and said the categories of people eligible for alternative programs
should be expanded.
Under
current law, the vast majority of those in ICE custody are subject to
mandatory detention to ensure that they show up for their immigration
hearings and are deported
if a removal order is issued.
Those
who are held include recent border crossers facing deportation, those
who illegally reentered the United States after previously being
removed, legal residents who
have been convicted of crimes and those seeking political asylum.
She said the government should conduct case-by-case evaluations to decide whether an immigrant needs to be detained.
"Detention
is jail; it's a removal of someone's liberties," Epstein said. "We in
America should not be doing that without due process."
Opponents
of expanding alternatives to detention say it is essential that
immigrants facing possible deportation remain in government custody.
"Illegal
immigrants in particular are almost the embodiment of a flight risk,"
said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration
Studies, which advocates
for a more restrictive immigration system. "People who don't really
have any realistic prospect of winning their case before an immigration
judge have absolutely zero incentive to show up."
While he said there are some cases in which alternatives are appropriate, he said detention "should be the default setting."
The
number of immigrants held behind bars in the United States has
increased steadily since the 1990s, when Congress expanded the range of
crimes that can trigger deportation.
The number has risen in recent years even as numbers of immigrants
caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border have fallen to the
lowest levels since the 1970s.
Segura illegally crossed into the United States 26 years ago. He said he and his family were fleeing El Salvador's civil war.
Segura
graduated from high school in Los Angeles and worked for two decades as
a construction site supervisor with the same company. During a 2007
trip to Las Vegas, he
was pulled over for drunk driving. At the time he had temporary
protected status, which is granted to some immigrants when they are
unable to return to their home country because of armed conflict, an
environmental disaster or other conditions.
After
he failed to attend an immigration hearing stemming from his arrest, a
judge revoked his protected status and issued a removal order. Segura
said he did not attend
the hearing because he was sick — he has diabetes — and went to court
the following day to explain.
Several
years later, he was stopped at a police checkpoint and cited for
driving on a suspended license. When he did not show up for that hearing
— he said his employer
refused to let him take the day off — a judge issued a bench warrant.
He
was arrested last year after a traffic officer discovered the warrant
while running his license plate, and was eventually transferred into ICE
custody.
Segura
was held in California's largest immigrant detention center, a
privately run facility in the small desert town of Adelanto.
"I
spent Christmas and my birthday in jail," said Segura, who asked his
three American-born daughters not to visit him because he didn't want
them to see him in an orange
jumpsuit. "It was ugly."
He
now lives in San Bernardino. He must be home every Wednesday from 8
a.m. until 1 p.m. for a visit from a parole specialist. Every Thursday,
Segura makes an appearance
at the ICE office.
He
hopes he will be successful in challenging the deportation order. He
hasn't been back to El Salvador since 1987 but, if ordered, said he
would have no choice except
to return.
"I don't want to be on the run for the rest of my life," he said.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment