home

Here Come the Detention Camps: Immigration Legislation

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Sun May 20, 2007 at 06:47:25 PM EST
Tags: immigrants, detention centers (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Among the provisions of the compromise immigration bill is one calling for the building of more detention camps.

SEC. 137. INCREASE OF FEDERAL DETENTION SPACE AND THE UTILIZATION OF FACILITIES IDENTIFIED FOR CLOSURES AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990.

a) Construction or Acquisition of Detention Facilities-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall construct or acquire, in addition to existing facilities 1 for the detention of aliens, at least 20 detention facilities in the United States that have the capacity to detain a combined total of not less than 20,000 individuals at any time for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal of such aliens from the United States subject to available appropriations.

I'll be commenting on other provisions as I read through them.

< The New Immigration Bill | Bloggers Choice Awards >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Here Come the Detention Camps: Immigration Legislation | 20 comments (20 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Jeralyn: here's an idea (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:42:25 PM EST
    If "liberals" stopped encouraging illegal immigration, wouldn't things be much better all around? Mexico would be forced to reform, many fewer people would try to cross the desert (and thus many fewer would die trying), and many fewer detention centers would be required.

    Jeralyn: do you deny that that's correct?

    > 400,000 beds = new netroots home? ;) (none / 0) (#1)
    by seabos84 on Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:17:20 PM EST
    o.k., I'm tin foil hat here ... but

    we are talking about the bushies.  anyone want to trust these fascists?  you can be sure cheney and rummy will be big shareholders in the ... um ... 'private' company providing this 'service' to taxpayers...

    rmm.

    seabos4 (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:38:54 PM EST
    No, I can't be sure. Perhaps you can tune your tinfoil hat and provide us a link.

    Parent
    you need PROOF to put corruption, cheney (none / 0) (#13)
    by seabos84 on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:28:39 PM EST
    rummy, bush all together?

    and you've been asleep for the last 6 years of bushco, or the last 27 years of theiving thugs ?

    rmm.

    Parent

    seabos84 (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:51:39 AM EST
    Yeah, I'd like to see a little bit.

    Don't have any, do you?

    Parent

    20,000 people (none / 0) (#3)
    by diogenes on Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:58:20 PM EST
    Aren't there 20,000 people here illegally who have known criminal records who we would want to detain until they are deported?  I doubt that those sorts would show up for a deportation hearing if caught, and if they were put in jail then the blogs would have the same complaints.

    They've been building this for years. (none / 0) (#4)
    by dkmich on Sun May 20, 2007 at 08:34:51 PM EST
    Haliburton, right?  I've read about these several times before on dkos. Some are already built I think.  What the hell is going on?  

    hello (none / 0) (#5)
    by VC on Sun May 20, 2007 at 09:16:47 PM EST
    I'm soory, but I cannot find Sec. 137. I my copy worng or perhaps dated?

    Thanks,

    Daniel Maldonado
    Webmaster

    Wrong bill (none / 0) (#6)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sun May 20, 2007 at 09:25:17 PM EST
    You've got the wrong bill. The one you're looking at was introduced by Democrats early this month. The new bill will be introduced this coming week (unless people keep freaking out about it).

    You want to click the links that Jeralyn or selise provided, or use the one that I use here.

    Parent

    Slick, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#7)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sun May 20, 2007 at 09:56:17 PM EST
    First, calling detention centers "camps" is akin to calling federal prisons "camps." The term "detention camps" carries an emotionally and politically charged connotation (which is why pro-illegal activity folks use it, of course). In reality, federal detention centers have a lot more in common with jails than they do any kind of "camp."

    Second, opposition to detention centers constitutes nothing more than a knee-jerk response unless such opposition considers whether more detention is needed. If it's true that illegal immigration has increased in the last ten years then it's also true that more detention space may be necessary. Evaluating section 137 therefore turns on a few questions:

    (1) Are detention camps necessary at all? (Presumably, folks like Jeralyn would say "no." Those folks can stop reading now and go back to their pipe-dreams.)
    (2) Do we have enough detention space now? (If not, does section 137 address the problem?)
    (3) Is detention space adequate to protect the due process rights of illegal aliens?

    Slick (