How the Supreme Court is Expanding the Immigrant Detention System

A quarter-century ago, in 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, on any given day, was holding somewhere around 5,500 immigrants in “immigration detention.”

For fiscal year 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement budget documents projected an average daily population in detention of roughly 31,000. That increase—nearly six-fold in 25 years—made the Enforcement and Removal Operations division of ICE roughly the 13th largest prison system in the country. On its busiest days in FY 2017, ICE housed a population well above that.

During FY 2018, ICE reports that its average daily population has been 40,726. Before the year began, ICE budget documents had projected a detention population of 51,379. That staggering expansion—65 percent in a single year—would have vaulted ERO to a spot somewhere around No. 7. Its population would rank in size behind only the federal prison system and those of California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Texas.

In 1973, the great Russian writer Alexandr Solzhenitsyn coined the term “Gulag Archipelago” to denote the Soviet system of political prisons and labor camps. In the last 25 years, the United States has, without fanfare, brought into being a kind of ERO Archipelago—secretive, loosely supervised, and, in human and constitutional rights terms, deeply problematic. And the “system” will, if the current administration carries forward its enforcement plans, grow significantly larger year by year.

As of 2016, only about 10 percent of detainees were held in federal facilities at all; the remainder were housed in state, county, or city jails (25 percent) or private for-profit prisons (65 percent). Each of the local or private facilities is governed by an agreement with ICE governing inmate conditions, and the agreements aren’t uniform. Some require better conditions than others. Even ICE’s defenders do not seriously contest that ERO detention facilities are rife with poor physical conditions, inadequate medical …read more

Source:: The Atlantic – Politics

The Atlantic Politics & Policy Daily: Frosty Flake

Today in 5 Lines

Against the wishes of many of his advisers and fellow Republicans, President Trump signed an order imposing steep tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. Canada and Mexico are exempted from the tariffs, and other countries will reportedly be invited to negotiate exclusions from the measures. Arizona Senator Jeff Flake criticized the move in a statement, and pledged to draft and introduce legislation to nullify the tariffs. Trump told reporters that South Korea will be making a “major statement” about North Korea at 7 p.m. ET. The Interior Department reportedly spent nearly $139,000 to upgrade doors in Secretary Ryan Zinke’s office.

Today on The Atlantic

One Right to Rule Them All?: Garrett Epps breaks down the text of the Second Amendment and concludes that it doesn’t guarantee “an unlimited individual right to bear any kind and number of weapons by anyone.”

Colorless and Deadly: On Sunday, an ex-Russian spy and his daughter were poisoned in Britain by a nerve agent. Here’s how the gas works. (Sarah Zhang)

We Can’t Handle the Truth: A new MIT study shows that, by every metric, falsehoods and fake news consistently reach more people than real news on Twitter. (Robinson Meyer)

Does Welfare Make People Lazy?: Nope. In fact, cash assistance is a critical investment in the future careers of low-income kids. (Derek Thompson)

Follow stories throughout the day with our Politics & Policy portal.

SnapshotDemonstrators cheer during an International Women’s Day rally in Cincinnati. John Minchillo / AP

What We’re Reading

Florida Passed a Gun-Control Bill: Here’s what’s in the legislation—and what’s missing. (Maggie Astor, The New York Times)

Is Kamala Harris the Future of the Democratic Party?: The California senator is a rising star on the left, but she’s keeping her future plans on the down-low. (Burgess Everett …read more

Source:: <a href= target="_blank" title="The Atlantic Politics & Policy Daily: Frosty Flake” >The Atlantic – Politics

How to Kill a Revolution

Editor’s Note: Read The Atlantic’s special coverage of Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy.

Image Above: Three days after King is murdered in Memphis, soldiers patrol riot-torn Chicago.

“Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them.” Jesus’s rebuke to the Pharisees descended upon me on a cold January morning in 2017, in West Potomac Park in Washington, D.C. On that Monday, the national holiday dedicated to the man at whose memorial I stood, the capital bustled in anticipation of a more pressing political event. That’s why I was at the park, pondering this granite stone of hope, carved out of a mountain of despair. The memorial to Martin Luther King Jr. cast its shadow over me, its presence just as conflicted as those tombs.

To hear more feature stories, see our full list or get the Audm iPhone app.

As sure as Jesus’s words proved prescient about the adoption of Christianity in the empire that killed him, so too the modern-day legend of King writes itself in real time. In the official story told to children, King’s assassination is the transformational tragedy in a victorious struggle to overcome. But in the true accounting, his assassination was one of a host of reactionary assaults by a country against a revolution. And those assaults were astonishingly successful.

Revisiting those assaults requires a walk through the pandemonium of the last years of King’s life. There is perhaps no better Virgil for this task than James Baldwin, a man with close friends in every ideological corner of the civil-rights movement. Among them, his prophetic spirit found kinship with King—“young Martin,” Baldwin called him—whom he first met in 1957 in Atlanta.

Baldwin understood viscerally the course that King had to travel. He predicted “the dangerous …read more

Source:: The Atlantic – Politics