A pair of liberals are pushing the Obama administration to shutter its privately run immigration detention centers.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a Monday letter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Sen. Bernie Sanders Bernie SandersNYT editorial board remembers Ginsburg: She 'will forever have two legacies' Two GOP governors urge Republicans to hold off on Supreme Court nominee Sanders knocks McConnell: He's going against Ginsburg's 'dying wishes' MORE (I-Vt.) and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said the for-profit facilities should be phased out because of their poor track record when it comes to safety, efficiency and basic human rights protections.

Energized by the Justice Department's recent decision to end the agency's use of privately operated facilities, they're asking DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson to follow suit.

"Given the impact on detainees, the high cost to taxpayers and the Department of Justice's recent decision, we believe the Department of Homeland Security can and should immediately begin phasing out for-profit, privately run immigration detention centers," Sanders and Grijalva wrote.

The lawmakers have long opposed the government's reliance on for-profit prisons and detention centers, having sponsored legislation last year to ban them entirely across all agencies.

Sanders also made the issue a focal point of his failed presidential run, arguing that the private companies too often prioritize profit motives over the safety of inmates and detainees.

The critics got a huge boost last week, when the DOJ announced it would stop renewing private prison contracts when they expire. The department had resorted to for-profit facilities as federal inmate numbers grew and overcrowding became a problem, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates argued in an Aug. 18 memo.

But a recent decrease in the prison population — from 220,000 in 2013 to 195,000 today — has made the extra space unnecessary.

Yates also leaned heavily on an internal DOJ inspector general report finding that the for-profit facilities performed worse than government-run prisons when it came to providing rehabilitation services, reducing recidivism rates and ensuring the safety and security of inmates and personnel.

Sanders and Grijalva said those same problems plague the for-profit facilities monitored by the DHS, resulting in health problems among immigrant detainees.

"In fact, the lack of proper medical care in for-profit facilities led to the deaths of several detainees," the lawmakers charged.

DHS officials have defended their use of the privately run centers in the wake of the DOJ announcement. Last week, the DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) branch issued a statement saying the facilities accomplish the agency's goal to balance detainee safety and taxpayer interests.

"ICE remains committed to providing a safe and humane environment for all those in its custody," spokeswoman Jennifer Elzea said in a statement. The agency, she added, "provides several levels of oversight in order to ensure that detainees in ICE custody reside in safe, secure and humane environments and under appropriate conditions of confinement."

A spokesman for the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which oversees facilities for both the DOJ and DHS, called the criticisms "stale" and "unfounded," pointing to ICE's statement as proof that the company adheres to "safe, humane" policies.

The company also rejects the DOJ's argument for closing its for-profit prisons, saying the inspector general report is flawed.

"The findings simply don’t match up to the numerous independent studies that show our facilities to be equal or better with regard to safety and quality, or the excellent feedback we get from our partners at all levels of government," CCA spokesman Jonathan Burns said Monday in an email.

A shift away from for-profit facilities under the the DHS could affect even more people than the DOJ's policy change. While roughly 22,100 inmates are currently serving in privately run prisons, more than 24,500 detainees reside in for-profit facilities overseen by the DHS, according to the agency.

Both scenarios, say Sanders and Grijalva, are misguided.

"Community-based alternatives to detention are more humane, cost-effective and provide the necessary resources to ensure undocumented immigrants comply with immigration court proceedings," they wrote to Johnson.