Federal pacts defy state’s law, values

Right before Christmas, federal officials awarded contracts worth billions of dollars to the private companies that currently run four immigration detention centers in California. Under the new contracts, detention space in California will double in the years to come — to nearly 7,200 beds.

The dramatic increase in immigrant detention — and the dramatic increase in immigration raids it portends — would be enough of a reason to oppose these contracts. But what’s truly outrageous is their timing.

The contracts went into effect on Dec. 20. That’s less than two weeks before a new state law goes into effect to will ban such contracts altogether.

“The contracts are not impacted by the limitations on the operation of private detention facilities by California (state bill) AB32,” Paige Hughes, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, wrote in a statement. “State laws aimed at obstructing federal law enforcement are inappropriate and harmful.” State officials feel differently. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB32, by state Assemblyman Rob Bonta, DAlameda, back in October. The bill, which goes into effect Jan. 1, bars the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from entering into or renewing a contract with a private prison company and phases out the state’s use of private prison facilities by 2028.

California has already begun the process of phasing out the state’s use of private prison facilities, exiting an Arizona facility this past June and one in the Central Valley in September.

Reducing the state’s use of private prison facilities has been a goal of criminal justice advocates, budget hawks and concerned state officials for many years, and for good reason. Studies of private, forprofit prison facilities show that they often provide substandard levels of both security and inmate care.

The evidence that they save the government money is also thin. Removing the profit motive from criminal detention is also a critical part of fulfilling the state’s responsibility to rehabilitate inmates before they reenter society.

While AB32 was working its way through the legislative process this summer, Bonta expanded it to include private immigration detention facilities. In a statement, he noted the humanitarian crisis at the southern border — a crisis that’s partly of the Trump administration’s design — and said, “It’s clearly not enough to focus our legislation on prisons alone.”

It’s hard to argue with Bonta on the facts of private immigration detention. Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office released a review of these facilities in February; it found that they failed to provide detainees with appropriate conditions for mental and medical health care, language barriers, contact with friends, family and legal counsel. The facilities also used “harsh disciplinary practices” that are “unnecessarily severe,” given the detainees’ profiles.

These are some of the many reasons why Newsom signed AB32, and why his office is so furious about the new ICE contracts.

“The prohibition on private, forprofit prisons and detention facilities is a historic step forward for California’s efforts to address overincarceration, including the civil detention of immigrants and asylum seekers,” said Vicky Waters, a spokeswoman for Newsom. “This effort to circumvent California’s authority and federal procurement rules that safeguard the American taxpayers must be addressed by Congressional oversight.”

Should Congress fail to step in, yet another legal fight between California and the Trump administration is sure to follow. As with most of California’s legal battles with the Trump administration, this one will have been well earned.