In Their Own Words

Enduring abuse in Arizona immigration detention centers

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

This report would not have been possible without the participation of the
men and women who shared their stories of struggle and hope. We are
profoundly grateful and dedicate this report to them and their families as
well as all who are detained in Arizona and across the country.
We also extend our appreciation to the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project
and Human Rights Program for supporting this work, and to the ACLU
Washington Legislative Office staff for their helpful review and comments.

Executive Summary

3

Letter from the
Executive Director	

5

I	 Introduction

6

II	 Growing Detention
Through Local Enforcement

9

A number of Arizona-based organizations and individuals have served as sources of inspiration
and information for this report. We thank the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project,
No More Deaths, Respect/Respeto and Puente for their tireless work on behalf of migrant
communities in Arizona and their contributions to this project.

III	 The Pinal County Jail:
Contracting Away Human
Rights

15

IV	 Grievances Denied

20

Finally, special thanks to Eduardo Barraza of Social Eye Media for taking photos used
throughout this report and to Robrt Pela for his editing contributions.

V	 Vulnerable Populations in
Detention

23

Victoria López of the ACLU of Arizona was the primary investigator and author of this report.

VI	 Deficiencies in Medical  and
Mental Health Care

28

Cover photo credit: Mary Lunetta. Cover poster credit: Ernesto Yerena, hechoconganas.com

VII	 Conclusion and Additional
Recommendations

32

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona is the state’s premier guardian of liberty, working
daily in the courts, the Arizona Legislature and communities statewide to defend and preserve
individual rights and freedoms guaranteed to all by the Constitution and the laws of the United
States and Arizona. The ACLU of Arizona is an affiliate of the ACLU, the largest civil liberties
organization in the country, with more than 500,000 members.
ACLU of Arizona
P.O. Box 17148
Phoenix, AZ 85011
602-650-1854
www.acluaz.org

In Their Own Words
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
of ARIZONA

Enduring abuse in Arizona immigration detention centers
Published June 2011

Executive Summary
As the federal government continues its reliance on immigration detention, more and more people,
including thousands in Arizona, are forced to endure injustices and inhumane treatment. Through
contracts with private corporations and local county jails, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) detains 3,000 immigrants on any given day in Arizona – a 58 percent increase over six years.
These men, women and children represent 10 percent of the country’s detained immigrant population.
To put a human face on the issue of immigration detention, the ACLU of Arizona conducted 115
face-to-face interviews with people detained in Eloy and Florence, Arizona, corresponded with
detainees, interviewed family members, and reviewed hundreds of government records including
more than 500 detainee grievances. What emerges are the stories of people who have suffered
systemic civil and human rights abuses related to inhumane conditions and inadequate legal
protections, especially in these five areas:
Increased detentions resulting from local immigration enforcement > The federal
government’s reliance on local law enforcement to identify and detain suspected non-citizens
has led to an increase in non-violent, low-risk persons being funneled through Arizona’s
immigration detention system.
Inhumane conditions at Pinal County Jail > Pinal County Jail has received “deficient” ratings
in 2007, 2008 and 2009, yet ICE continues to contract with the county for detention beds.
Detention officers frequently place ICE detainees on lockdown for minor infractions, including
not making a bed, not moving quickly enough, or saving a piece of fruit to eat later in the day.
Denial of grievances and lack of accountability > ICE Detention Standards are not
fully implemented in detention facilities across the country. These standards are selfmonitoring and non-legally enforceable. At the privately-contracted Eloy Detention Center
(EDC), one of the largest ICE facilities in the country, accountability is a constant problem
for detainees.
Abusive treatment of vulnerable populations > Vulnerable populations in detention have
unique needs and are at a higher risk for sexual assault and physical abuse. The ACLU of
Arizona documented five cases involving transgender or gay detainees who were sexually
assaulted or treated in an abusive manner.
Deficient medical and mental health care > The standards for medical care are governed by
the ICE Detention Standards, which vary in their application from facility to facility, even within
the 22-mile area of the Arizona ICE facilities.
The United States recently affirmed its obligation to “ensure the human rights of all immigrants,
documented and undocumented alike.” However, with over 400,000 people expected to be detained
by federal immigration authorities this year, our government must remedy major deficiencies
immediately by:
 Terminating contracts with Arizona facilities that pose a risk to the safety and well-being of
immigrants in ICE custody;
 Reducing the number of people subjected to detention in Arizona by utilizing more cost-effective,
community-based alternatives to detention; and
 Ensuring conditions in Arizona detention facilities comport with basic human rights and needs.
Page 2 ACLU of Arizona

In Their Own Words Page 3

Letter from the Executive Director
Known early on as the first “international bill of rights,” the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) recognizes that “the inherent dignity and…the equal
and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of
freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

“

But where does the United States stand today in this pursuit of
human dignity and equal rights? When looking at the treatment
of immigrants in this country – and in the state of Arizona in
particular – it’s clear we haven’t made much progress. While the
United States has recognized that its laws and policies are far
from perfect, and has committed to engage in efforts with the
international community to improve its human rights record at
home, this commitment stands in stark contrast with the daily
reality for hundreds of thousands of people who are subjected to the inhumane
U.S. immigration enforcement and detention system.

This Declaration
is based upon the
spiritual fact that
man must have
freedom in which
to develop his full
stature, and through
common effort to raise
the level of human
dignity.”
Eleanor Roosevelt

Upon the adoption of the
Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) at the
United Nations, 1948

In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced plans to
“overhaul the U.S. immigration system in an effort to improve detention center
management, and prioritize health, safety and uniformity among immigration
detention facilities, while ensuring security and efficiency.” To date, detention
reforms have resulted in very little change on the ground, where it matters most. Both state and
federal governments continue their aggressive enforcement efforts with little accountability and
no effective mechanisms for measuring stated policy goals. Meanwhile, egregious human rights
and constitutional violations continue to occur every day in detention facilities across Arizona.

Through our interviews and correspondence with detainees, we’ve been able to document
the experiences of mental anguish caused by detention and physical abuse suffered by many
immigrants. We’ve heard stories of how parents are separated indefinitely from their children; how
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) detainees are placed in segregation for months;
how detainees struggle to get medical attention, make a phone call, or visit with a loved one.
We are sharing these stories with the public, policy makers, and community stakeholders so
that we can influence change and implement humane and sensible policies that comport with the
U.S. Constitution and human rights treaties that mandate respect for the basic rights and dignity
of all people.

Alessandra Soler Meetze
Executive Director, ACLU of Arizona
ameetze@acluaz.org

4

Page 4 ACLU of Arizona

In Their Own Words Page 5

I Introduction
In recent years, immigrants in Arizona have experienced an extreme convergence of enforcement
measures targeted at them, their families, their communities, and those who support them. The
actions of government officials have led to widespread civil and human rights violations, including
racial profiling, arbitrary and prolonged detention, deprivation of medical care and basic human
needs, and separation from family and community.
Fueled by a combination of hostile state and federal laws, draconian enforcement policies, and
racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric, immigrants and in some cases U.S. citizens are regularly
subjected to discriminatory and constitutionally-flawed laws and policies. On the federal level, the
growth of the immigration detention system is unparalleled, and continues to operate through
increasing privatization and without legally enforceable standards. It’s fueled by mandatory
detention laws, cooperative agreements with local governments, and minimal due-process
protections. In Arizona, many officials have made it publicly and perfectly clear that they are more
than willing to serve as the testing ground for anti-immigrant laws. The passage of Senate Bill 1070
as a measure to create “attrition through enforcement” reflects the core goal of many in Arizona
government: make life so inhospitable that people are forced to leave the state. Police agencies
and jails throughout the state operate lock-step within a myriad of federal programs with minimal
oversight or transparency.
ICE currently detains hundreds of thousands of non-citizens in facilities across the country, the
majority of which are operated by private prison corporations and county jail officials. On August
6, 2009, the Obama Administration acknowledged that reforms are necessary in the immigration
detention system and announced that DHS would work in the next three to five years to adopt a
non-punitive “truly civil” model for immigration detention. DHS and ICE officials, nationally and in
Arizona, continue to work with non-governmental agencies and others to accomplish some of these
reforms.
Despite these efforts, however, the system continues to operate with little transparency and
accountability, ineffective standards and inadequate procedures for monitoring facilities.
Furthermore, the federal government continues to rapidly expand cooperative agreements with
local law enforcement agencies, which continues to fuel the detention and deportation system with
minimal oversight or constitutional protections.
In Arizona, ICE contracts with local government and private corporations, and operates an
ICE-owned facility. On any given day, 3,000 immigrants face deportation proceedings in these
detention centers.1 These men, women and children comprise approximately ten percent of the
country’s detained immigrant population.2

4

Page 6 ACLU of Arizona

I have been in ICE detention
for over three anda half
years...		
3

ICE Detention Centers
There are five long-term detention centers in Arizona that are ICE-operated or under contract with
ICE to detain adult immigrants:
The Florence Detention Center, also known as the ICE Service Processing Center, is a 717-bed,
ICE-owned detention facility. Within this center is the Florence Staging Facility (FSF), where
individuals go through ICE intake and are transferred to facilities in the area. Both men and
women are held in this facility.
The Pinal County Adult Detention Center, commonly known as Pinal County Jail, houses 625
male detainees. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) has an Inter-Governmental
Services Agreement (IGSA) with Pinal County, Arizona.
The Eloy Detention Center, owned and operated by the Corrections Corporation of America, is
a 1,500-bed detention center for men and women. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
(ERO) has an Inter-Governmental Services Agreement (IGSA) with the City of Eloy, Arizona.
ICE also contracts with the Corrections Corporation of America at two separate facilities in
Florence: the Florence Correctional Center (FCC) and Central Arizona Detention Center (CADC).

In Their Own Words Page 7

Contrary to public misconceptions, the detained population in Arizona consists of a diverse group
of people with legally complex cases. Many people in detention do not have criminal convictions
yet they are incarcerated while the immigration and federal courts resolve their immigration cases,
which are administrative and not criminal matters under U.S. law. Some detainees have sought
asylum or have been admitted to the United States as refugees. Others are longtime, lawful
permanent residents of the United States with close ties to the community, including spouses and
children who are U.S. citizens. Despite government assertions that migrants in Arizona are detained
for brief periods of time, immigrants may languish in detention for months or years while they wait
for their cases to be decided by the immigration courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and
the federal courts.
Advocates remain concerned over persistent abuses and a lack of progress in the implementation
of reforms on the ground. Detained immigrants in Arizona face serious issues related to conditions
of confinement and lack of due process. Deficient conditions and punitive treatment in Arizona
detention centers not only compromise the safety and well-being of those detained, but also impact
their ability to do what is most important to them: present a legal defense against deportation.
While detention is generally justified as necessary to ensure court appearances or to prevent
people from committing dangerous acts in communities across the country, the reality remains that
the majority of people detained in the federal immigration system are generally non-criminal and
non-violent. Despite repeated statements by DHS that they will focus enforcement resources on
criminal populations, immigrants from all corners of the globe continue to be detained, regardless
of criminal history, immigration violations, or humanitarian factors that would favor their release.

Number of People Detained in Arizona ICE Facilities 2000 - 2009
These totals were compiled 1,200,000
from ICE data received
1,000,000
through a FOIA request.
They show the number
800,000
of unique individuals
detained over a given period 600,000
of time at any one of the
400,000
five long-term ICE facilities
in Arizona. 2009 data is
200,000
for the first and second
0
quarters of the fiscal year.

Page 8 ACLU of Arizona

The socio-political environment in Arizona has created a breeding ground for the federal
government to experiment with its immigration enforcement programs. In recent years, ICE
detention and removal efforts in Arizona have increased as a direct result of both amplified
enforcement on the Arizona-Mexico border and increased interior enforcement through so-called
“cooperative agreements” with local police, county jails and state prisons.5
Nationally, ICE ACCESS (Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and
Security) programs have contributed significantly to the number of people placed in ICE detention.
For example in 2009, 60 percent of people placed in ICE detention were identified through local
law enforcement initiatives such as 287(g) and Criminal Alien Program (CAP).6
However, even by ICE accounts the majority of people booked into custody through
“ Hay una persecución
these programs are identified as not having been convicted of a crime.7
In Arizona, nine law enforcement agencies participate in the 287(g) program.8 All
fifteen counties in the state participate in the Secure Communities program, which
was expanded statewide just months after the passage of SB 1070 in April 2010.9

masiva en contra de
los inmigrantes en
Arizona.” (There is
a massive persecution
against immigrants in
Arizona.)

Agencies that participate in 287(g) programs have officers that are cross-designated
to perform federal immigration enforcement duties, including arresting, detaining,
and interrogating persons believed to be non-U.S. citizens. These officers also
A detainee in Florence 4
process certain immigration orders and initiate removal proceedings. Under a 287(g)
memorandum of agreement, local law enforcement officers may be deputized to
perform 287(g) duties during the course of their regular patrol duties and/or within the jails.
Through the Secure Communities program, jail officials collect fingerprints from every person
booked into a local jail. These fingerprints are then submitted and checked in federal biometrics
databases. In cases where fingerprints match those in DHS immigration databases, a person may
be transferred to immigration custody regardless of the manner in which the person was brought
into custody or whether the person is actually convicted of a crime.
In practical terms, the unrelenting enforcement of immigration laws by Arizona agencies through
federal agreements and broadly interpreted state laws has permitted operations targeted at
immigrant communities. It has also increased the number of non-violent non-criminals funneled
through the detention-deportation pipeline in Arizona. Just as significant is the climate of fear and
distrust of law enforcement that this unyielding attack has created among immigrants and, in
particular, the Latino community.

46 20
0, 00
03
9
2
59 00
0, 1
12
8
2
54 00
5, 2
30
4
2
55 00
8, 3
45
6
2
69 00
0, 4
54
3
20
72 0
7, 5
30
7
2
67 00
3, 6
94
6
2
84 00
3, 7
78
1, 2 5
00 00
6, 8
93
0
2
50 00
6, 9
10
1

4

II Growing Detention Through Local Enforcement

The 287(g) program has been widely examined and criticized by government and non-government
agencies. Findings by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) include ICE’s failure to adequately supervise and train 287(g)-designated officers,
sufficiently track data and institute transparent mechanisms to address civil rights violations.10
Similar to criticisms of 287(g), Secure Communities has also come under great scrutiny for failing
to deliver on its primary goal of apprehending and deporting dangerous criminals.

In Their Own Words Page 9

)
The continued use of both programs without meaningful changes in the face of these critiques has
resulted in serious violations of human and civil rights, including racial profiling, unlawful arrests
and prolonged and unnecessary detention of immigrants as well as U.S. citizens in Arizona.

Héctor

has lived in Tucson,
Arizona since he was
5 years old, when he
was adopted by his
U.S. citizen relatives.
He graduated from
high school and earned
a bachelor’s degree
in political science
from the University of
Arizona. In the summer
of 2010, Héctor was
stopped by local police
for a traffic violation.
Once in custody, he was
fingerprinted, identified
as a non-U.S. citizen,
and transferred to ICE
custody. He didn’t spend
any time in jail for a
criminal offense, yet
was detained for five
months at the Florence
Correctional Center, a
privately-owned prison
contracted by ICE in
Florence, Arizona.
Héctor was recently
granted legal residency
in the U.S.

4

Page 10 ACLU of Arizona

For example, Josue, a U.S. citizen of Mexican descent, was arrested and booked into the county
jail for driving while intoxicated. Upon intake at the jail, he was questioned by Maricopa County
Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) deputies for several hours about his immigration status. Despite repeatedly
telling officers that he was born in Phoenix and although his mother provided a copy of his birth
certificate, he was transferred to ICE custody. Once he arrived at the ICE office, Josue’s original
birth certificate was eventually located in a property box and he was released from immigration
custody.11
Maribel, a former detainee, was also targeted. “The police stopped me in Phoenix just because
I have dark hair and look Latina,” she wrote in a letter to the ACLU-AZ. “I did not commit any
infraction. I showed (the officer) my ID from here, and (he) looked at it and told me, ‘This is not you.
This ID is false.’ The police was just looking for an excuse to report me to immigration.” Maribel
was detained in Florence for over one month. She was eventually released on bail to fight her case.
She has been living in the U.S. for more than 10 years and has two U.S. citizen sons and a lawful
permanent resident husband.12
Nowhere has this sort of discrimination been more greatly felt than in Maricopa County, which has
become an important example of the abuses that have been made possible not only by the 287(g)
program, but by the willingness of the federal government to continue agreements with a county
that has a documented record of violating the rights of migrants and others and refuses to be held
accountable for violations.13
Currently, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office participates in a “jail model” 287(g) agreement
with ICE.14 The Sheriff’s office reports that deputies have arrested 2,516 “illegal immigrants” and
have “turned over” 38,548 immigrants to ICE for deportation.15 Since 2007, MCSO has conducted
22 “crime suppression sweeps” and 27 worksite raids pursuant to state human smuggling and
employer sanctions laws.16
In many instances, people arrested during worksite raids and sweeps are charged with minor
offenses – such as having a small crack in their windshield or a broken taillight – or misdemeanor
offenses such as failure to show identification or trespassing. After their arrest, these individuals
are booked into jails where they are asked about their immigration status and shuffled through
the criminal court system, where they may or may not be convicted of a crime. They’re eventually
transferred into ICE custody, where they’re either expeditiously deported from the United States or
transferred to a long-term detention center where they begin their battle to remain in the country.
Because 287(g) jail officials are granted the authority to interrogate people about their immigration
status and prepare charging documents to initiate deportation, the entire criminal and immigration
process – from initial arrest to removal – can take place completely on paper within the walls of the
county jail, with little or no opportunity to assert due process rights, and with minimal involvement
from the local ICE office.

In Their Own Words Page 11

They putus in a 8x 20 cell.
23 of us. We did notknow
whatwas happening or where we
weregoing. About6 hours later
transportation pickedus up.
17

Fabiana

Fabiana has lived in the U.S. since she was 12 years old. She is the mother of a 4-year-old U.S. citizen
daughter and engaged to a U.S. citizen. Fabiana was arrested by Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies
during a worksite raid. She has no criminal history in the U.S. and no criminal charges were filed against
her resulting from the raid. After being interrogated and detained by county officials, she was transferred
to the ICE field office in Phoenix, where she was detained in temporary holding cells for an entire day.
Instead of releasing her, ICE transferred Fabiana back to the county jail, where she was held in a small
intake cell with 20 other women, the majority of whom had been booked into the jail on criminal
charges. There were no beds, blankets or hygiene items in the intake cell. The cell was freezing cold, and
the women had to huddle together to stay warm. She did not sleep at all while she was there. At 4 a.m.,
deputies gave her two pieces of bread, peanut butter, and juice. She was not told how long she would be
there. Later that morning, Fabiana was taken back to the ICE holding cells. She sat on a concrete bench
in the ICE holding cell for another 12 hours until she was transferred to long-term detention in Florence,
where she remained for three weeks until an immigration judge granted her request for bail. Fabiana
posed no threat to the community, yet ICE continued to detain her, shuttling her from one cell to another
in Phoenix, exposing her to terrible jail conditions and keeping her in a constant state of uncertainty and
fear, separated from her family.18

4

Page 12 ACLU of Arizona

Many people report that during the intake process in county jails, they’re pressured to waive the
few rights they have and to sign documents without explanation of their contents. They’re not, in
these cases, allowed to call family or attorneys, and are subjected to verbal abuse and unsafe and
degrading conditions of confinement. One detainee was told by an officer in Phoenix, “It’s not going
to make a difference if you fight your case. You’re going to get deported. You’re just wasting your
time.”19
ACLU-AZ heard similar accounts from other detainees who experienced this treatment. Tomas, for
example, was arrested during an MCSO “crime sweep” in the summer of 2009. He was arrested
by officers for a broken taillight. He recalls that during the intake process at MCSO’s Fourth Avenue
Jail, he was questioned about his immigration status between eight and ten times by Sheriff’s
deputies and constantly pressured to agree to voluntary departure to Mexico. Tomas refused,
because he has lived in the U.S. for a long time and is married to a U.S. citizen. After refusing to
sign any document without speaking to a lawyer, he was placed in a cell separated from other
detainees, and deputies refused to answer his questions or allow him to call his wife. He was
eventually transferred to the detention center in Florence, and was released on bail.20
Similarly, Samuel, a business owner who has lived in Phoenix for 20 years, called the interrogation
by Maricopa County sheriff’s deputies “el martillo de abuso” or “the hammer of abuse,” referring
to the repeated, insistent demands by deputies to answer questions about his immigration status.
Samuel refused to answer, repeatedly asking to speak to his attorney. He was transferred to the
Florence detention center and eventually released on bail.21
Despite the Department of Homeland Security’s repeated pledge to pursue detention reforms,
their continued contracting with and use of the MCSO jails directly contradicts the stated goals
of detention reform and enforcement priorities.22 The prioritization of enforcement, measured in
increased deportations and occupied detention beds, has resulted in the use of jail facilities that
subject people to dangerous conditions and inhumane treatment.23
In an interview conducted in February 2010 by volunteers with the Arizona-based humanitarian
organization No More Deaths, a group of women who had been deported to Mexico explained the
conditions of confinement at the MSCO Estrella Jail, where they were detained between one and
two months.
“The three interviewees reported collectively on conditions in La Estrella,” according to the No More
Deaths interview. “(They) reported that guards would yell at women who didn’t understand English,
that guards laughed at a woman who was mentally ill and … would randomly declare that the room
was under ‘lockdown,’ which meant that no one could leave their beds or talk. The women reported
that the guards said to them, ‘You don’t have rights here. You are in our country. You are no one.’
They were given deportation papers to sign that were in English and were not translated for them.
Before deportation, the three women reported that they were moved to another facility, also in
Maricopa, for around forty hours. In this facility, more than thirty people were held in one tiny room,
so that they could not lie or sit down. The room was extremely cold and had only one exposed toilet
in the corner. They were deported at around 11 a.m. and were not given food the morning they
were deported.” 24

In Their Own Words Page 13

In a similar story reported by No More Deaths, P.O., a 41-year-old man from Mexico who has
resided in Phoenix for 13 years, was arrested in Phoenix by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
for failure to show identification. He told the jail officials that he takes medication daily for diabetes,
and repeatedly asked for medical care over the course of the next nine days, and was denied. The
MCSO cells were extremely cold and were overcrowded and very dirty, and P.O. and others had to
sleep on the floor. He was deported to Nogales, Mexico at about 8 p.m., having spent eight hours
in ICE detention. The day after his deportation, in Nogales, Sonora, P.O.’s blood sugar was checked
and it was dangerously high. He states that his blood sugar was never checked during the time of
his detention. He states that they were given one meal per day of peanut butter, bread, juice, and
cookies, while detained by MCSO.25
Working hand-in-hand with the ICE ACCESS programs, the federal detainer regulations authorize
local officials to detain suspected non-citizens for up to 48 hours until they are transferred to
federal custody. The ACLU-AZ has documented several cases involving the misapplication of these
regulations, among them stories of people being held beyond the 48 hours permitted by regulation,
or transferred between county jails and temporary ICE holding cells to circumvent the regulations.
Formerly detained people have reported that during several days of transfers they were not
allowed visits or phone calls to family or attorneys, provided hygiene items, a change of clothes, or
a shower. Most distressing to all of those who experienced this treatment was that they were not
given any information about where they were being transferred from one day to the next, or when
they would be released or allowed to see a judge.26
The federal government’s system of relying on local law enforcement to identify and detain
suspected non-citizens has proven to be fundamentally flawed. In their current form and operation,
these programs will continue to serve as a dangerous and costly assault on human and civil rights.

Recommendations on federal-local immigration enforcement programs
 End the practice of local enforcement of federal civil immigration law.
 Establish formal complaint procedures to ensure that individuals who are wrongfully
arrested and/or wrongfully identified by state and federal databases may seek redress.
 Require local jurisdictions collaborating with DHS to issue periodic reports with arrest
and identification statistics for oversight and accountability. Those jurisdictions whose
statistics indicate racial profiling or non-compliance should be terminated from the
program.

III The Pinal County Jail: Contracting Away Human Rights
The most notable area of growth in immigration detention over the past several years has involved
the contracting between ICE and private corporations and county governments across
the country for detention beds. Currently, ICE utilizes space at 270 facilities for long“ We don’t go by ICE
term immigration detention. Many of these are county jails with punitive conditions
rules. We go by the
and are wholly inconsistent with ICE’s civil detention objectives.

Sheriff’s rules.”

Since 2005, ICE has used the Pinal County Jail (PCJ) in Florence, Arizona to detain
PCJ Detention Officer
immigrants facing removal proceedings in Arizona. The total jail capacity is 1,540,
to ICE detainee 27
with the majority of the beds used for county detainees and 625 beds contracted
to ICE to detain adult men and women. In the winter of 2009, however, after major
efforts by female detainees to document abuses at the jail and advocacy by the ACLU-AZ and other
organizations, including a fact-finding mission by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
the women were transferred from the jail to other contract facilities in Eloy and Florence.28
Detainees and advocates in Arizona express serious frustrations with the use of a county jail to
confine people for civil immigration proceedings. While ICE officials and the agency’s detention
standards describe immigration detention as non-punitive, conditions at PCJ can only be described
as extreme and abusive. Of the five detention facilities in Eloy and Florence, advocates report that
they receive the most complaints from those in custody at PCJ. The conditions of confinement at
the five facilities, which are within 22 miles of each other, are remarkably inconsistent. At the ICEowned Florence Detention Center, for example, detainees have virtually unrestricted access to
a new soccer field, yet less than two miles away at PCJ, detainees’ only exposure to natural light
and air is for one hour per day through a chain-link fence at the top of an indoor recreation pen
surrounded by concrete walls. “Para salir de aqui, rogamos que nos deporten” (“We often pray to
be deported, just to get out of here”), stated one PCJ detainee interviewed by the ACLU-AZ.29
The ACLU-AZ is especially concerned about conditions of confinement in several areas at PCJ,
including detainee access to contact visits, access to counsel, religious accommodations, access
to outdoor recreation, and reported abusive treatment toward detainees. In addition to the
documentation efforts of women who were detained at PCJ, in March 2011 approximately 90 men
detained at PCJ participated in a hunger strike to protest these inhumane conditions.
While local attorneys generally have regular opportunity for contact visits with clients at the Eloy
and Florence detention centers, there are significant problems with the system for attorney
visitation at PCJ. Although the Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) with the county was
negotiated in advance of the facility’s expansion to hold ICE detainees, it is noteworthy that no
appropriate space for attorney visits was created when designing this addition to the jail.
The main visitation area at PCJ consists of tele-video booths for family visits and tele-video rooms
for attorney visits. The use of tele-video equipment to conduct legal visits is particularly difficult, as
there is no guarantee of privacy and no contact with the client in order to share legal documents or
obtain signatures. The alternative to these tele-video attorney visits is a “contact” visit, conducted
in the basement of the jail. Only one attorney may have a contact visit at a time, and often must
wait anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes until their client is escorted to the visitation room by a
detention officer. In these “contact booths,” the only actual manner of contact is a pass-through

4

Page 14 ACLU of Arizona

In Their Own Words Page 15

slot where a few sheets of paper may be shared. The pass-through is not even wide enough to
share a pen in cases where there are legal documents requiring a signature. Discussions between
a detainee and his/her attorney in the contact booths are conducted over a telephone, which again
raises concerns about privileged information being overheard or monitored by detention personnel.
Detainees held in the other four Florence and Eloy facilities are allowed to have regular contact
visits from family and friends. However, PCJ only allows family visits over tele-video equipment.
Many of the people detained in Arizona have support networks throughout the U.S. and given
the remote location of PCJ families and friends often travel hundreds of miles to visit their loved
one often at great expense. It cannot be overstated how important these visits are; for detainees
fighting their cases, there is great uncertainty in the immigration process and fear while one is in
detention. Visits from family and friends provide essential emotional support and guidance.

I

In a letter written to advocates in August 2009, women who were detained at PCJ summarized
grievances from over 30 detainees.30 Among the complaints was not being allowed contact visits
with family. “Here at PCJ,” one detainee wrote, “the only way to have a visit with our families is
by way of a televised screen and a telephone. [W]e do not have the right to contact visits, unless
it is an attorney who is visiting us, which makes our stay here more depressing and affects us
psychologically, since in circumstances such as these (being denied our liberty) we need all the
support of our families. As if that were not enough, some of the detained have been far removed
from their cities of residence, which makes family visits impossible.” 31
Through correspondence with the ACLU-AZ, ICE officials state that they facilitate contact visits for
detainees held at PCJ by transporting them to the Florence Detention Center when requests are
made in advance.32 However, when asked about contact visits with family, almost all detainees to
whom we spoke indicated they were either denied requests for contact visits or did not know that
they could even request such a visit.
In correspondence and interviews, detainees also emphasize that the punitive environment at
PCJ contributes to detention officers treating ICE detainees like “criminals” by placing them on
“lockdown,” searching cells and issuing disciplinary write-ups for minor issues such as not making
a bed, not moving quickly enough, or saving a piece of fruit from their meal to eat later in the
day. These write-ups sometimes result in placement in segregation and/or the loss of the few
privileges given, such as commissary or telephone time. Some of the most disturbing reports from
detainees include detention officers threatening that even the most minor disciplinary write-ups
will be reported to the immigration court and will negatively affect their legal defense. When faced
with these real or perceived consequences, many detainees report that they choose not to file
grievances.
“We also wish to denounce the inhumane and degrading treatment which we are given in this jail,”
wrote one detainee in a letter to the ACLU-AZ. “The majority of sheriffs who take care of us treat
us with contempt and as if we were dangerous criminals. Here in PCJ, they treat us by yelling at us
and threaten to lock us all day in our cells, as if it were not enough to already be deprived of our
liberty.”33

4

Page 16 ACLU of Arizona

Joe

Joe is South African and
a legal resident of the U.S.
He came to America when
he was 12 years old with
his mother, father, and two
siblings. Joe was detained
for over three months at
the Pinal County Jail after
being arrested by ICE at
the probation office in
Phoenix, where he was on
the verge of completing
two years of probation
for a minor drug offense.
While detained at PCJ,
he witnessed verbal abuse
and harassment by jail
officials. “They treat us like
county inmates,” he says.
“There’s a lot of yelling,
a lot of searches. They
confiscated my books and
refused to return them.”
Eventually, Joe was granted
a humanitarian waiver
allowing him to remain in
the U.S. with his wife and
family.

In Their Own Words Page 17

In approximately May of 2010, ICE engaged in a process to reclassify and move detainees between
the five detention facilities in Florence and Eloy. During the course of these transfers, many of the
men who were transferred to PCJ stated their refusal to be transferred, citing abusive treatment
and poor conditions at the county jail. Despite their protests, the men said they were threatened,
pepper-sprayed, and forcibly transferred by detention officers. In his letter to the ACLU-AZ, a man
who was detained for eight months writes, “Me and 22 other detainees were removed from the
Florence Correctional Center/Corrections Corporation of America (FCC/CCA) against our will. Most
of us were already detainees here before and we know the treatment here, that is why we refuse to
come here to PCJ […] I’m here again and nothing change since I left. The treatment is even worse. It
is difficult to keep positive here at PCJ. I hope this testimony from me and the other detainees will
bring some changes here at PCJ and detention centers all across America.”34
In its reform announcements, DHS included as one of its immediate goals the following: “ICE will
aggressively monitor and enforce contract performance in order to ensure contractors comply with
terms and conditions – especially those related to conditions of confinement. When confronted
with repeated contractual deficiencies, ICE will pursue all available avenues for remedying poor
performance, including termination of contracts.”35
Correcting basic problems in the conditions of confinement for ICE detainees is not only necessary
to comply with the federal government’s authority for civil and not punitive detention, but essential
for maintaining legal rights and protections for persons who are deprived of their liberty and facing
court proceedings with extremely high stakes.
It is therefore shocking and disappointing that despite receiving “deficient” audit ratings for the
years 2007, 2008, and 2009, and the persistence of documented human rights violations at PCJ,
ICE continues to contract with the county for detention beds.36

Recommendations for creating transparency and accountability
in immigration detention facilities
 Immediately terminate the detention contract with Pinal County Jail.
 Require all detention facilities utilized for the detention of civil immigration detainees to
adhere to uniform ICE Detention Standards.
 Identify contractors who do not comply with ICE Detention Standards and terminate their
contracts.
 Discontinue the use of private, for-profit prison contractors for use in civil immigration
detention.
 Utilize more cost-efficient, community-based alternatives to detention and release policies.
 In cases where detention is warranted, use the least restrictive setting possible, ensuring
humane detention conditions for all detainees.
 Train all personnel who have daily contact with immigrants in the detention system in
accordance with the principles of civil detention, including regular training on detention
standards, working with vulnerable populations, grievance procedures and civil and human
rights obligations.

4

Page 18 ACLU of Arizona

Francisco

Francisco spent 14 months in ICE custody at the Eloy Detention Center on a minor drug possession
offense for which he spent 10 days in county jail. Francisco has lived in Phoenix since he was a young
child, where he also attended grade school and high school. His mother and stepfather are legal
residents and his two young sisters are U.S. citizens. He also has a 4-year-old U.S citizen daughter.
Francisco’s stepfather filed a family petition on his behalf when he was a minor, which was pending
at the time of Francisco’s arrest. Current immigration laws require mandatory detention, even of
people who have very old or minor convictions like Francisco. In these cases, immigration judges are
not allowed to consider family, work or community ties to decide whether one should be released on
bail to continue his case outside of detention. Separated from his family for more than a year and
faced with the possibility of deportation to a place where he has no family or support, Francisco and
his family endured uncertainty and significant hardships. His case was eventually granted by the
immigration judge and today he is a legal resident.

In Their Own Words Page 19

Eloy Detention Center

IV Grievances Denied
The 2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standard on grievances states that its scope
and purpose are intended to “protect detainees’ rights and ensure they are treated fairly by
providing a procedure by which they may file formal grievances and receive timely responses
relating to any aspect of his/her detention.” 37

“ [A] credible grievance
process, sustained
by an environment
that is free from
intimidation and
retaliation, is critical.”
Dr. Dora Schriro

Immigration Detention
Overview and
Recommendations
ICE Office of Detention
Policy and Planning
October 6, 2009

However, men and women detained in all five Arizona facilities noted
that grievance procedures are unclear, ineffective and inadequate to
address the problems they face in detention. Several people indicated
that they do not even attempt to file grievances because they are afraid
of retribution by officers and other staff who may consider their requests
or grievances an annoyance. Detainees in some facilities explained
that they have to request grievance forms from detention officers, that
officers often ask details about the nature of the grievance before
supplying the form, and sometimes have to wait several days before
receiving a form.

As with many privately-owned contract facilities, accountability is a
constant problem for detainees at Corrections Corporation of America
(CCA)- Eloy Detention Center (EDC), one of the largest ICE facilities in the
country. One woman who was detained at EDC for over one year told us,
“ICE needs to take some responsibility here. We cannot complain to CCA
because they tell us to contact ICE, and ICE tells us to talk to CCA. Here we do not have rights.” 38

At PCJ, detainees report that they are uncertain whether ICE reviewed grievances or whether the
review process was limited to jail staff. Alarmingly, several detainees in each of the Arizona facilities
indicated that detention officers commonly threaten detainees with transfer to PCJ if they file
grievances, complain, or make requests that are deemed unreasonable by guards.

Complaints by Category
Diet 8
Medical  53
Treatment by Staff 194
Personal Property 15
Law Library 8
Religious 9
Accommodation 12
Mail  14
Other 98
Resolution of Grievances
Formal Resolution 312
Informal Resolution 22
No Resolution 48
Non Grievable 29
Distribution of Formal Resolutions
Approved 44
Denied 268
No Resolution 48
Non Grievable 29

Florence Detention Center
Complaints by Category
Diet 68
Medical  12
Treatment by Staff 20
Personal Property 5
Law Library 5
Religious 6
Accommodation 2
Mail  7
Other 8
Resolution of Grievances
Formal Resolution 66
Informal Resolution 58
No Resolution 7
Non Grievable 2

One of the recent reforms implemented by DHS is the inclusion of detention monitors in various
facilities throughout the country. In Arizona, however, detainees report that they rarely see ICE
liaisons or monitors and that when they do come to the housing units, they are often unresponsive
or state that they are unable to resolve any particular problem. In their recent report, researchers
with the Women’s Refugee Commission noted that ICE detention managers at two of the Arizona
facilities held employment at those facilities prior to these positions, raising concerns about their
objectivity and effectiveness in monitoring.39

Distribution of Formal Resolutions
Approved 2
Denied 64
No Resolution 7
Non Grievable 2

The ACLU-AZ reviewed 500 grievances lodged by men and women detained in Florence and Eloy
between 2005 and 2009; the results are indicated in the graphs on page 21.

Recommendations for resolving and addressing detainee grievances
 Develop clear and standardized grievance procedures, including appeals, for detainees in
all ICE facilities as well as for advocates to file on behalf of detainees.
 Require timely and thorough resolution of grievances, with notice to detainees of decisions
reached in each case.
 Require facilities to document all grievances and allow detainees the opportunity to file a
written grievance in all cases, even those that are resolved through “informal” channels.

4

Page 20 ACLU of Arizona

In Their Own Words Page 21

V Vulnerable Populations in Detention
Vulnerable populations in detention include the mentally ill, asylum-seekers, torture survivors and
children, as well as women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) immigrants. As the
detention population across the country has increased, so have the number of detainees with
unique needs and those at higher risk for sexual assault, physical abuse and other trauma while
detained. Given the particular needs and risks associated with these populations, it is imperative
that ICE systemically address the placement and conditions of confinement that these populations
are subjected to while in their custody.

LGBT Detainees in Arizona

“ Before anything else,
I am human.”

LGBT immigrants in detention often face significant harassment, discrimination
and abuse at the hands of fellow detainees, as well as by detention personnel.
A transgender detainee
The ACLU of Arizona interviewed a number of gay and transgender detainees held
at Eloy Detention Center 40
in ICE facilities in Arizona. Some of their specific concerns include being housed
with detainees of a gender with which they don’t identify, inadequate medical care,
detention staff divulging confidential information, placements in segregation, and physical and
sexual violence.
A number of incidents of sexual assault in immigration detention facilities have been publicly
reported in recent years.41 Over the course of this project, the ACLU of Arizona documented five
cases involving transgender or gay detainees who were sexually assaulted or treated in an abusive
manner while in detention in Arizona facilities.

Tanya

Tanya is a transgender woman who has lived in Tucson, Arizona for almost 20 years. Her family
members are U.S. citizens and lawful residents, and reside in Arizona. She was detained by ICE at
the Eloy Detention Center for seven months. In custody, Tanya was held in a men’s housing unit and
isolated in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for approximately six weeks. She experienced multiple
incidents of extreme harassment and abuse relating to her gender identity. After reporting an incident
involving detention center staff, she was sent to SHU for approximately ten days. Tanya was told they
were investigating her case but was not provided documentation or interviewed about her placement
in isolation. Tanya was also threatened by a male detainee who tried to force her to engage in oral
sex. When she reported this to an officer, she was sent to SHU and does not think that the detainee
who threatened her was disciplined in any way. Tanya also experienced verbal and mental abuse
by detention officers who constantly harassed her for wearing her hair in a ponytail or cuffing her
pant legs. They repeatedly threatened her with isolation. While she was detained, Tanya suffered
depression and anxiety. She is now out of detention and in the process of applying for asylum.

4

Page 22 ACLU of Arizona

While ICE does not systemically track the number of sexual assaults in detention facilities across
the country, these and other reported cases very likely represent only a fraction of the actual cases
of sexual abuse of immigrants in detention. Under-reporting of sexual abuse among detained and
immigrant populations is common for a variety of reasons including lack of information about
reporting mechanisms, fear of retaliation or possible deportation, and actual deportation from the
United States prior to a report being filed and investigated.
The sexual assaults committed against immigrant women at the T. Don Hutto detention center
in Texas (reported in May 2010) spurred ICE to take some steps to correct policies that placed
immigrants at a heightened risk of sexual abuse while in custody. The proposed changes
include revisions to search and transportation policies, improvements to medical procedures
in rape cases, and data collection on incidents of abuse. However, ICE still does not currently
have standards or other policies that specifically address the concerns and problems that LGBT
immigrants face in detention. Based on interviews conducted with advocates and LGBT detainees
in Arizona, ICE should ensure that all standards and assessments addressing abuse in detention
be revised to specifically include protections for LGBT detainees.
“My client was raped in detention,” wrote a local immigration attorney to ACLU-AZ in April of 2009.
“He has no criminal record, and before leaving [his] home county, was raped. He passed the
credible fear interview but our request for humanitarian parole was recently denied. While he was
detained in Florence, he was raped by another detainee in the bathroom. It was reported to the
police, but the prosecutor in Pinal County declined to prosecute. After the rape, he was placed in

In Their Own Words Page 23

Leticia

Leticia is the mother of two U.S.
citizen children and has lived in
Phoenix, Arizona for 20 years.
Originally from Guatemala, Leticia
was detained in Florence and then
Eloy for 21 months. She has never
been arrested or convicted of any
crime. When asked about her
situation, she says, “The law of ICE
is so unfair to people. I am a single
mother, working, honest, fighting
here in this jail for months, separated
from my children, fighting for my
case. This law, which separates many
families, closes the door to fixing
our immigration status, destroys
the lives and futures of our children
who are citizens and are paying the
consequences of this great cruelty.”
Despite her clean record and family
ties, ICE continued to detain her in
deplorable and inhumane conditions.
For more than one year, while
detained at PCJ, Leticia was not
allowed to have contact visits with
her children, did not have outdoor
recreation, and suffered depression
and anxiety.

4

Page 24 ACLU of Arizona

isolation. He couldn’t eat, couldn’t sleep; just kept reliving trauma. He is completely alone, not even
a television. We can only visit him on certain days because he is in protective custody. Everything
has to be put on lock-down for him to be moved to visitation. When he is brought to visitation (or
anywhere else), he is shackled hands, feet, and waist. They refuse to take off the shackles even
to speak with me, and this is despite the fact that we are in a non-contact booth through a glass
window. And the guards stand right outside. He is also in stripes. It is so degrading, after having
been a victim, that I am truly outraged.”42
Another major problem discovered in Arizona facilities affecting LGBT immigrants is the overuse of
segregation, either in a Special Housing Unit or isolated cell. LGBT persons are sometimes placed
in segregation based on their sexual identity, with the stated reason of protecting the detainee from
harassment or threats by other detainees – often called “protective custody.” While in “protective
custody,” however, detainees are often subjected to prolonged periods of isolation and treated
harshly, and their physical and emotional well-being and safety are threatened.
ICE Detention Standards state that segregation is not to be used as a punitive measure.43 However,
detainees and their attorneys report that conditions in the segregated units are deplorable; there is
no regular access to telephones and detainees are shackled when taken to court and for medical
or legal visits. In many cases, immigrant detainees have been placed in isolated cells without
being provided documentation evidencing the reason or given a review for such a placement. In
the majority of cases detainees do not know whether they are in disciplinary or administrative
segregation, how long they will be in segregation or that they may appeal their custody placement.
In many of these cases, detention officials have not considered requests to be released from
segregated units or provided any alternative arrangements to ensure that LGBT detainees are both
protected and not subjected to cruel and punitive conditions.
Simon’s experience is an example of a particularly vulnerable case. As a gay man who has suffered
prior assaults, harassment and threats in his home country and while detained in the United
States, Simon is especially susceptible to harassment. He is HIV-positive and, in order to maintain
his health, requires constant medical monitoring and an environment with minimal stress and
anxiety. Simon was placed in “protective custody” when he was detained in Eloy because he told
officers that he had been previously assaulted and was afraid for his safety. While in “protective
custody,” he was made to wear an orange disciplinary jumpsuit and was shackled any time he
was taken to court or for visitation. He felt humiliated and worried that the shackles would give the
immigration judge the wrong impression and negatively affect his immigration case. Even though
Simon’s family wanted to visit him at the detention center, he did not want them to see him in
shackles. As a result of these traumas, and compounded by his continued detention, Simon suffers
from severe depression and anxiety.44

Detained Women in Arizona

Advocates have consistently campaigned for detention standards and regulations that specifically
address the needs of immigrant women in detention. Since approximately 2000, INS/ICE began to
detain large numbers of women in Arizona. There are approximately 300 women detained by ICE
in Arizona on any given day at the Eloy Detention Center, a CCA-contracted facility. Adult immigrant
women account for approximately 10 percent of the total detainee population in Arizona.

In Their Own Words Page 25

The ACLU-AZ interviewed and corresponded with over 50 women detained and formerly detained
in ICE custody in Arizona. For the majority of the women, ICE detention was the first time many of
them had ever been subjected to arrest and jail. As a smaller segment of the detained immigrant
population, women often struggle to obtain basic needs and are at a heightened risk for
harassment and assault while in custody.45
A 2009 report published by the University of Arizona’s Southwest Institute for Research on Women
(SIROW) documented the issues and detention conditions that immigrant women encounter in the
facilities in Eloy and Florence.46 Among those findings are that women did not receive adequate
medical or mental health care, were often mixed together with women serving criminal sentences,
and were often transferred from faraway states. In most cases, researchers found that women
were separated from at least one child. In cases where children were placed in state custody,
women faced significant obstacles in accessing their state’s Department of Child and Family
Services to participate in guardianship and custody decisions while they remained in detention.
“I have lived 11 years in this country, and I have two young children who need me,” says Sylvia, a
woman who was detained at PCJ. “Let ICE say that my children no longer need me; I am a single
mother and my children depend on me, just like my parents, who are citizens. To this date, I have
taken care of my parents who are sick, and I am a nurse. I cannot stand this incarceration any
longer. That is what they want, to bring one to a point of despair so one will quit fighting her case.”47

Recommendations on the detention and treatment of vulnerable populations
 Amend the risk assessment tool to prioritize vulnerable populations – such as LGBT
immigrants, pregnant or nursing mothers, families, and persons with medical or mental
health issues – for release.
 Provide comprehensive training for officers on how to identify vulnerable populations,
including LGBT individuals.
 Only use segregation as a last resort and ensure that all persons placed in segregation
be afforded regular and meaningful access to visitation, medical care, the telephone, law
library and other basic needs.
 Require ICE detention facilities to issue periodic reports about placements in segregation
and continued use of segregation.
 Extend the Prisoner Rape Elimination Act’s National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and
Respond to Prison Rape to include immigration detention facilities.

The Women’s Refugee Commission also published a report in October 2010 detailing their findings
after a delegation visited women detained in Florence and Eloy in the summer of 2010.48 Sadly,
despite the fact that a year passed between the two reports, many of the problems described in
the SIROW report persist in the women’s detention facilities.
Prior to summer 2010, women were also regularly detained at the privately-owned CADC in
Florence, which had serious problems. Women reported that there were infestations of insects in
the dorms; outdoor recreation was limited and inconsistent; there was mold in the bathrooms; and
the temperature in the dorms was very hot. When the women tried to raise these problems with jail
officials, they were ignored or discouraged from filing grievances.
“She felt as if she was being treated like an animal,” one local attorney said about her client’s
experience while detained at that facility. “She was in a room with 14 other women, with one very
dirty toilet. She had a rash all over her body – she is assuming that it was from the clothes she was
wearing. She said that she only slept for about an hour a night. She frequently had nightmares.
There was no air conditioning and no air in the room that she was housed in. One of the guards
would leave the door open for them so that there would be a little bit of air circulating, but the
others would make a point to keep the door closed at all times.”49

4

Page 26 ACLU of Arizona

In Their Own Words Page 27

VI Deficiencies in Medical and Mental Health Care	
Adequate and timely medical and mental health care is critical for people in immigration detention.
Many people will be held in custody for months and even years while they apply for legal remedies
and await decisions from appellate courts. Detained refugees and asylum-seekers who have
experienced severe trauma in their home countries and persons with existing medical conditions
often suffer symptoms that are exacerbated by detention. In our interviews,
even detainees with no previous medical problems expressed serious concern
“ Individual complaints
about changes in their physical and mental health while in custody, including
regarding the
depression, anxiety, sleeplessness and significant weight loss.

provision of medical
care should be
carefully considered
and responded to in a
prompt fashion, and
the overall provision
of medical care
should be systemically
managed to ensure
appropriate remedies
are implemented
where necessary.”

ICE Health Service Corps is primarily responsible for the medical and mental
health care provided to individuals in ICE custody. In Arizona facilities, those
responsibilities are also shared by county jail and private prison providers. The
standards for medical care are governed by the ICE Detention Standards, which
are not legally binding and vary in their application from facility to facility, even
within the 22-mile area of the Arizona ICE facilities. Despite some changes in the
provision of local medical care, persistent deficiencies and inconsistencies in
the delivery of medical care continue to have a negative impact on the detained
population in Arizona.

Among the most commonly reported problems by detainees in Arizona is that
their requests for medical care were not taken seriously by detention staff,
nor conveyed to appropriate medical staff. It was also reported that detainees
experienced delays before being seen by or receiving treatment from a provider,
Dr. Dora Schriro
and were not given care consistent with prior treatment. In some cases,
Immigration Detention
detainees told us that they provided detention center medical staff with previous
Overview and
medical records and prescriptions, yet still did not receive consistent or timely
Recommendations
ICE Office of Detention
care. In one case, a man suffering from bipolar disorder and depression told
Policy and Planning
us it took medical staff approximately three weeks to provide him with his antiOctober 6, 2009
psychotic medication. Upon intake at Eloy, he told a nurse about his condition
and the names of the medications he had been prescribed. While he waited for
his medication, he became increasingly frustrated and was eventually placed in isolation for “acting
out” in general population.50

Ifyou do notdie here from
sadness for being imprisoned,
you’ll die from lack of
medical attention.
52

Angela

Angela is a 40-year-old Jamaican woman who has been a lawful resident for 33
years. She is blind in one eye and suffers from a painful and recurring skin disease.
Upon her detention at Eloy, she provided her medical history. Over the course of her
four-month detention, she began to experience significant pain and swelling of her
face. Despite multiple requests for pain medication and attention from a doctor,
she was not provided care until she fainted in her housing unit and was rushed
to a local hospital. She remained in the hospital for several days and was given
intravenous antibiotics. Angela filed a grievance with the detention center about
their untimely response to her medical needs. Soon after she filed her grievance, she
was released from custody.53

In a letter written to the ACLU-AZ, women detained at the Pinal County Jail stated that the medical
care they were provided was inadequate. “The solution to all our physical ailments is ‘drink lots
of water’ so our heads won’t hurt,” wrote one of the women. “‘Drink lots of water’ so our stomach
won’t hurt. ‘Drink lots of water’ because my ear hurts. ‘Drink lots of water’ because my back hurts.
‘Drink lots of water’ because I’m dizzy and feel like vomiting. ‘Drink lots of water’ because my tooth
hurts. ‘Drink lots of water’ because I have high blood pressure. ‘Drink lots of water’ because I have
low blood pressure. ‘Drink lots of water’ because I have acne.”51

4

Page 28 ACLU of Arizona

In Their Own Words Page 29

I
I

I violatedan immigration law
ofcivil character notpenal,
butI’m being treated like a
dang erous person withoutany
rightto have contactvisits with
my family...
54

Helen

Helen was detained at Eloy Detention Center for one month. For almost the
entire time she was detained, she experienced severe vaginal bleeding. She filed
medical requests and told staff that this was not normal for her monthly period,
but they still did not consider her situation a medical emergency. The bleeding
became so severe that Helen experienced blurred vision, fainting, and could
not walk. Helen continued to file requests to see a doctor. Ultimately, detention
officers called a medical emergency and Helen was taken to a local hospital,
where doctors performed a complete hysterectomy.55

4

Page 30 ACLU of Arizona

Cases involving persons with serious medical conditions also raise questions about ICE’s methods
for assessing a detainee’s medical needs upon arrest. A detainee with serious health issues
should not be placed in a detention setting, but rather released under supervised release or
a community-based alternative program. In one case, the ACLU-AZ requested humanitarian
parole for a Jamaican man detained at Pinal County Jail; he was diagnosed with a severe brain
injury and suffered from daily seizures. At the time of filing our request, this man had suffered
over 15 seizures while detained at the jail. The request for parole was denied despite extensive
documentation of his medical condition, the negative effects of the detention setting on his
physical condition, extensive family support, and the ability to obtain medical care upon his release.
Serious problems with medical care in detention facilities across the country have been widely
reported by media, non-governmental organizations and in lawsuits that describe the dangerous
and inadequate conditions in facilities across the country and among specific populations such as
women56 and the mentally ill.57 A lawsuit filed in June 2007 and recently settled by the ACLU and
ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties specifically cites the cases of 11 detainees who suffered
a variety of serious medical and mental health issues that went untreated while detained at an ICEcontract facility in San Diego. In that case, ICE officials agreed to increase medical staffing, meet
national standards on correctional health care, and change its policy on “non-emergency” medical
care at the San Diego Correctional Facility (SDCF).58
These and many other deficiencies in the immigration detention medical care system indicate a
failure by ICE to meet constitutional and human rights obligations, leading to needless suffering
and even death. Following litigation and extensive media coverage of detainee deaths, ICE has also
issued a directive for the Notification and Reporting of Detainee Deaths, which requires officials to
notify various agencies, U.S. Congress and the deceased’s family and consulate. Between October
2003 and January 2011, 118 immigrants died while in ICE custody. Ten immigrants died in custody
in Arizona from various causes, including three suicides.59

Recommendations for addressing deficiencies in medical and mental health care
provided to immigration detainees
 Require that detention standards include guarantees for the timely and effective delivery
of medical and mental health care.
 Amend the risk assessment tool and provide updated parole directives to local field
offices, emphasizing that persons with severe medical and mental health conditions be
released on parole or into a supervised release or community-based alternative program.
Any determination to continue to detain a person with major medical issues must be
reviewed by an independent medical monitor.

In Their Own Words Page 31

VII Conclusion and Additional Recommendations
Arrest, detention, and deportation have devastating and long-term effects on individuals going
through the process, as well as on their families and communities. The case examples and issues
presented in this report are intended to serve as a necessary reminder of the pressing need for
reform. Central to any reform is the need for ongoing discussions with advocates, detainees, their
families and communities.

“ All persons deprived
of their liberty shall
be treated with
humanity and with
respect for the inherent
dignity of the human
person.”

The current immigration detention system in the U.S. violates a number
of constitutional and international rights that are meant to ensure
fair treatment and non-discrimination, access to justice and personal
liberty, as well as to protect against inhumane and degrading treatment,
arbitrary detention and arrest. These rights and protections are
enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the
Convention against Torture, and the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination – treaties ratified by the U.S. that apply
to the rights of migrants and detained persons.

International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights

In addition to the recommendations outlined throughout this report, it
remains imperative that the U.S. Congress amend current immigration
Article 10 (1)
laws that have allowed the detention system to expand so rapidly,
Ratified by the U.S. in 1992
subjecting more and more people to dangerous and inhumane
conditions of confinement. Specifically, Congress must review and
narrow the list of criminal convictions under the Immigration and Nationality Act that subject
individuals to mandatory detention, and must also provide greater discretion to immigration judges
to grant bonds to persons that pose no threat and are not a flight risk.
While both DHS and ICE have been working to develop performance-based detention standards,
this process has been significantly delayed and continues to be an ineffective way to monitor
the vast network of detention facilities across the country. Congress should enact binding and
enforceable detention standards applicable in all immigration detention facilities, including contract
facilities. Finally, legislative action must be taken to extend the right to court-appointed counsel
for indigent individuals undergoing immigration proceedings, and should expand funding for legal
services to non-profit organizations offering free or low cost immigration legal services.  

This country defends human
rights butis turning into an
oppressor andpersecutor of
immigrants.
60

Ester

Ester, her mother, and younger sister are from Guatemala. During their arrest
by CBP in the Arizona desert, Ester witnessed her mother being beaten by a CBP
officer. Ester was pushed to the ground, which caused bruising to the left side of her
body. While detained at a CBP jail, Ester’s mother stated that she wanted to file a
complaint but was told that she was going to be deported and that it wouldn’t make
a difference. Ester’s mother and sister, who is a minor, were released but Ester was
detained in Eloy. When she arrived at the detention center, she was examined and
given medication for pain. She did not file a grievance or complaint with ICE or CBP.
Ester said, “I didn’t feel as if I had any rights. If I spoke out, who would listen? Who
would help?” After being detained for three months, Ester was released on bail and
reunited with her family.61

The ACLU of Arizona commends DHS and the local ICE office for their willingness to engage with
advocates and attorneys on detention and enforcement issues. The agency must increase its
efforts to limit the use of detention, especially for members of vulnerable populations and those
with family and community ties in the U.S.

4

Page 32 ACLU of Arizona

In Their Own Words Page 33

Endnotes
1	 This figure does not include persons held in county jails and prisons pursuant to immigration detainers or those
held in short-term custody along the U.S.-Mexico border.
2	 Approximately 200 unaccompanied minors are detained in five separate facilities in the Phoenix area, while their
removal proceedings before the immigration court are pending. Unaccompanied minors are in ICE custody but
in the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement Division of Unaccompanied Children’s Services (ORR-DUCS).
For more information about immigrant children in custody in Arizona, see the work of the Florence Immigrant and
Refugee Rights Project at http://www.firrp.org/ and the recent report by the Women’s Refugee Commission at
http://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/reports/doc_download/656-migrant-women-and-children-at-risk-incustody-in-arizona.
3	 Correspondence with ACLU-AZ, June 2010.
4	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (name withheld), August 2009.
5	 For a general summary of ICE activities in Arizona, see http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/azenforcement.htm.
6	 Dora Schriro, Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations, ICE Office of Detention Policy and Planning,
(October 6, 2009).
7	 Id.
8	 By the end of 2010, these agencies included Maricopa County, Pima County, Yavapai County, Pinal County, Arizona
Department of Public Safety, Arizona Department of Corrections, Phoenix Police, Mesa Police and Florence Police.
See http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/287g.htm#signed-moa.
9	 See http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/secure-communities/pdf/activated-arizona.pdf. The ACLU and other
civil rights organizations challenged SB 1070 in Friendly House et. al v. Whiting, No. 2:10-CV-01061-MEA (D. Ariz.
filed 05/17/10). The preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect was upheld by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals in U.S.A. v. Brewer et. al, No. 10-16645 (9th Cir. April 11, 2011).
10	 GAO, Immigration Enforcement: Better Controls Needed over Program Authorizing State and Local Enforcement of
Federal Immigration Laws, GAO-09-109 (January 2009); OIG The Performance of 287(g) Agreements, OIG-10-63
(March 2010); OIG, The Performance of 287(g) Agreements Report Update, OIG-10-124 (September 2010).

18	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (pseudonym used), November 2009.
19	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (name withheld), June 2010.
20	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (pseudonym used), July 2009.
21	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (pseudonym used), July 2009.
22	 Stephen Lemons, in “The Bird” column, Phoenix New Times, February 11, 2010: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.
com/2010-02-11/news/no-room-for-arpaio-at-the-wells-fargo-inn-and-a-hispanic-homemaker-bears-witnessagainst-ice-and-mcso/.
23	 See http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/immigrants_stuck_in_limbo_with_courts_backlog_at_all-time_
high; http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6909471.html.
24	 Email from NMD volunteer to ACLU-AZ, Feb 13, 2010; on file with author.
25	 Email from NMD volunteer to ACLU-AZ, Feb 17, 2010; on file with author.
26	 In June 2010, a coalition of organizations including the ACLU submitted a letter to the Department of Homeland
Security identifying a number of problems with current detainer practices. The letter is available at http://www.aclu.
org/files/assets/Detainers_revised.pdf.
27	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (name withheld), June 2010.
28	 The Inter-American Commission’s findings and March 2011 report can be found at: http://cidh.oas.org/
Comunicados/English/2011/21-11eng.htm.
29	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (name withheld), August 2009.
30	 In the winter of 2009-2010, ICE moved all of the women from the Pinal County Jail to CADC in Florence and EDC in
Eloy. As of the writing of this report, there are no women detained at the Pinal County Jail.
31	 Correspondence with ACLU-AZ, August 2009.
32	 Letter from ICE Field Office to ACLU-AZ, November 2009; on file with author.
33	 Correspondence with ACLU-AZ, August 2009.
34	 Correspondence with ACLU-AZ, May 2010.

11	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (pseudonym used), June 2009.

35	 See http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/press_ice_detention_reform_fact_sheet.pdf.

12	 Correspondence with ACLU-AZ, August 2009.

36	 See http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/dfs/avgdailypop_fy09.pdf (last accessed December 15, 2010).

13	 In July 2009, for example, MCSO denied the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights access to its jails as
part of a fact-finding mission on the rights of migrants in the U.S. See http://www.acluaz.org/issues/prisonerrights/2009-07/371.

37	 2008 ICE Performance Based National Detention Standards (hereinafter PBNDS) available at http://www.ice.gov/
detention-management/.  

14	 In October 2009, MCSO signed a revised 287(g) agreement with the federal government that allowed the county
to continue its jail program but discontinued the street-level task force program, which had been in operation since
2007 and was the subject of great criticism for numerous civil rights violations. See http://www.azcentral.com/
arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/10/03/20091003arpaio-ice1003.html

39	 Migrant Women and Children at Risk: In Custody in Arizona, Women’s Refugee Commission, October 2010;
available at http://www.womenscommission.org/programs/detention/women-in-detention.

15	 Statistics as of December 2010. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office statistics available at http://www.mcso.org/.

41	 Detained and at Risk: Sexual Abuse and Harassment in United States Immigration Detention, Human Rights Watch,
August 25, 2010; available at http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/08/25/us-immigration-detainees-risk-sexualabuse.

16	 The ACLU of Arizona serves as co-counsel in two cases challenging MCSO’s unconstitutional police practices,
including racial profiling. See, Mora v. Arpaio et. al, No. CV 09-0 1719-PHX-DGC, (D. Ariz. filed Aug. 19, 2009)
(Challenging the unlawful arrest and detention of a U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident during an MCSO
worksite raid), and Ortega Melendres, et. al v. Arpaio et. al, No. 07-CV-2513-GMS, (D. Ariz. filed Dec. 12, 2007)
(Challenging unlawful stops and arrests of Latino motorists during MCSO sweeps).

4

17	 Correspondence with ACLU-AZ, June 2010.

Page 34 ACLU of Arizona

38	 Interview with ACLU-AZ, February 2010.

40	 Interview with ACLU-AZ, (name withheld), December, 2009.

42	 Email from local immigration attorney to ACLU-AZ, April 2009.
43	 2008 ICE PBNDS, Standard 2.15 Special Management Units.
44	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (pseudonym used), June 2010.

In Their Own Words Page 35

45	 See Detained and at Risk: Sexual Abuse and Harassment in United States Immigration Detention, Human Rights
Watch, supra note 41.
46	 Unseen Prisoners: A Report on Women in Immigration Detention Facilities in Arizona, University of Arizona
Southwest Institute for Research on Women, January 2009. http://sirow.arizona.edu/files/UnseenPrisoners.pdf.
47	 Correspondence with ACLU-AZ (pseudonym used), August 2009.
48	 See Migrant Women and Children at Risk, Women’s Refugee Commission, supra note 39.
49	 Email from local immigration attorney to ACLU-AZ, July 16, 2010.
50	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (name withheld), February 2010.
51	 Correspondence with ACLU-AZ, August 2009.
52	 Correspondence with ACLU-AZ, December 2009.
53	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (pseudonym used), November 2009.
54	 Correspondence with ACLU-AZ, December 2009.
55	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (pseudonym used), August 2010.
56	 Human Rights Watch, Detained and Dismissed: Women’s Struggles to Obtain Health Care in United States
Immigration Detention, March 2009, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/03/16/detained-and-dismissed;
Southwest Institute for Research on Women, Unseen Prisoners: A Report on Women in Immigration Detention
Facilities in Arizona, January 2009, http://sirow.arizona.edu/files/UnseenPrisoners.pdf.
57	 Texas Appleseed, Justice for Immigration’s Hidden Population: Protecting the Rights of Persons with Mental
Disabilities in the Immigration Court and Detention System, March 2010, http://www.texasappleseed.net/index.
php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=313&Itemid; Human Rights Watch and ACLU, Deportation
by Default: Mental Disability, Unfair Hearings, and Indefinite Detention in the US Immigration System, July 2010,
http://www.aclu.org/human-rights/deportation-default-mental-disability-unfair-hearings-and-indefinite-detentionus-immig.
58	 Woods et. al. v. Morton et. al,. No. 08-55376 (9th Cir. 2011); http://www.aclusandiego.org/news_item.php?cat_id_
sel=002&sub_cat_id_sel=000014&article_id=001095.
59	 ICE List of Deaths in ICE Custody, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/reports/detaineedeaths2003-present.pdf (Note
that ICE reports that Mr. Rogelio Canales-Baca from Honduras died at the Pike County Jail in Pennsylvania, and was
detained at the Pinal County Jail in Arizona. Based on information obtained via FOIA, however, Mr. Canales-Baca
was detained at the Pinal County Jail in Arizona where he was found in his cell at the time of his death by hanging).
60	 Correspondence with ACLU-AZ, August 2009.
61	 Interview with ACLU-AZ (pseudonym used), June 2010.

4

Page 36 ACLU of Arizona

ACLU of Arizona
P.O. Box 17148
Phoenix, AZ 85011
602-650-1854
www.acluaz.org