logo
Who's in charge at Alligator Alcatraz? ‘We've gotten a lot of runaround'

Who's in charge at Alligator Alcatraz? ‘We've gotten a lot of runaround'

Miami Herald5 days ago
Immigration attorneys and environmental activists — even the Mexican government and the Archdiocese of Miami — have all asked who's in charge at Alligator Alcatraz.
They say they can't get a straight answer.
'We've gotten a lot of runaround,' Archbishop Thomas Wenski told the Miami Herald after trying unsuccessfully to provide religious services for detainees. 'We don't know who's really accountable for that facility, whether it's the state of Florida or the federal government.'
Now nearly a month since Florida opened the country's newest, most novel immigration detention center, the question of whether the state or federal government has jurisdiction over the facility — and especially its detainees — continues to puzzle legal experts, tangle up lawsuits and complicate due process for the people held there.
Attorneys say they have repeatedly been told their clients at Alligator Alcatraz are not in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even though immigration enforcement is historically the realm of the federal government. Environmental activists suing in federal court to shut down the facility have been told the Trump administration is barely involved. Lawmakers given a tour of the detention camp said they were told it is functioning under a federal program that gives state and local officials the power to hold immigrants for the federal government — even though the state entity in charge has no such agreement.
The confusion has real-life consequences for the hundreds of men held in the detention camp's tents and pens, and potentially broad implications for immigration enforcement under the Trump administration, which may replicate the precedent established in Florida. The Trump administration is inviting states and local governments to apply for FEMA 'detention support' grants from a $608 million pool to fund the expansion of facilities to hold immigrant detainees.
'We've had several other states that are actually using Alligator Alcatraz as a model for how they can partner with us as well,' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said this month during a press conference in Tampa.
THE COURTS
Uncertainty around who has jurisdiction of the facility's detainees is frustrating the Mexican government's ability to push for the release of 14 Mexican nationals held at the site, including two brothers brought there on July 11 after being arrested by Florida Highway Patrol.
Juan Sabines, the Mexican Consul in Orlando, told the Miami Herald in a Thursday interview that the immigration attorney hired by the Mexican government to represent the brothers is still trying to find a judge who can be assigned to their cases. The Mexican government is now working to transfer them out of the detention center and to an ICE facility, he said.
'This is a prison that is not under the custody of ICE and that has no immigration judge on site,' Sabines said. 'We are in limbo.'
Also complicating their cases, according to Sabines: the brothers were only assigned an Alien Registration Number — the identifier used by ICE to keep track of detainees — for the first time on Wednesday.
Sabines' comments echoed frustrations aired more than a week ago by immigration attorneys who said they had been unable to find a court assigned to handle cases for Alligator Alcatraz detainees. The state said Friday that on-site legal services would be available for detainees starting Monday.
MIXED MESSAGES
Federal and state officials have delivered mixed messages about who's in charge of what.
Department of Homeland Security officials have attempted to distance themselves from the facility as a whole in court filings and deferred most questions about Alligator Alcatraz to the state. But Gov. Ron DeSantis has consistently evoked the Trump administration's oversight of immigration detainees, saying Friday during a press conference at the facility that it is the federal government taking detainees to and from the site.
'I know DHS has a whole process of how they do it,' DeSantis said, telling reporters that the Department of Homeland Security is now running flights to and from the detention center. 'Once they get on that plane, DHS handles them and processes them and deports them accordingly.'
A high-ranking Trump administration immigration official, however, said in response to a federal lawsuit by environmental groups challenging the facility's operations that it's the state, not ICE, that decides which detainees end up at Alligator Alcatraz.
'The ultimate decision of who to detain' at Alligator Alcatraz, wrote Thomas P. Giles, acting deputy associate director of Enforcement and Removal Operations for the Trump administration, 'belongs to Florida.'
The Department of Homeland Security has said that the state is managing the facility, and that immigrants arrested under a program granting local law enforcement immigration powers are to be detained at the site. The agency did not answer questions about whether they have any kind of agreement with the state to manage the detention center, or whether detainees held there fall under federal jurisdiction.
The Florida Division of Emergency Management did not respond to questions.
Scott Hiaasen, a Coffey Burlington attorney representing the environmental groups who filed the lawsuit, said the question of who is running the detention center is crucial to the suit because it's based on a federal statute requiring an environmental review of major federal actions.
'It shouldn't be a mystery to either the state or federal government where the legal authority is for this place,' Hiaasen said. 'What they're trying to do, at the end of the day, is pretend like this facility is not governed by federal law.'
Beyond the bounds of 287(g)
Another representation from Giles — that the site is operating under the 287(g) program granting local and state agencies immigration-enforcement powers typically reserved for the federal government — has also confused lawmakers and immigration experts.
Scores of Florida law enforcement agencies have active 287(g) agreements, including the Florida National Guard, which has stationed guardsmen at the detention center. But the Florida Division of Emergency Management, which is tasked with running the site, is not one of them.
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Florida Emergency Management Director Kevin Guthrie told her during a tour of the site that his agency does not have the direct 287(g) authority to run the facility. She and other Democratic lawmakers said officials clarified to them many times that ICE 'is calling the shots' while they toured Alligator Alcatraz on July 12.
'They [FDEM] are not designated to manage this facility on behalf of the federal government,' said Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat. 'We were not able to get clarity on whose 287(g) authority this facility is being run.'
Jennifer Whitlock, senior policy counsel at the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy organization for low-income immigrants, said she's baffled by how Alligator Alcatraz came to be, if it's not being run by ICE.
Whitlock said the state and federal governments' statements that Alligator Alcatraz is authorized through the state's various 287(g) agreements sound inaccurate. A 287(g) agreement permits local and state officers to hold detainees in 'custody,' but it does not allow for detention without ICE oversight, Whitlock said.
Operating a state detention center, rather than holding detainees in state prisons and county jails, is stretching the 287(g) agreement beyond the bounds of what Congress intended, Whitlock said.
In the federal statute allowing 287(g) agreements, it says that any officer, employee, or political subdivision of the state is acting under the 'color of Federal authority.' Also, anyone acting on behalf of a 287(g) agreement is supposed to be under the supervision of the U.S. Attorney General — which would be Pam Bondi.
'I don't know if there is actually a plan in place for any sort of oversight,' Whitlock said.
The DeSantis and Trump administrations have been clear that Alligator Alcatraz is not a federal detention center, but have been less forthcoming about what it is under state and federal law. On the state side, officials have said that the facility is not a state correctional institution because it's managed by the Division of Emergency Management, not the Department of Corrections. If that is the case, it's not legally subject to the state's standards for jails and prisons, Whitlock said.
A spokeswoman for Florida's Division of Emergency Management did not answer questions about which laws regulate the operations and oversight of Alligator Alcatraz.
The majority of federal immigration detention centers are run through government service contracts, said Nanya Gupta, policy director at the American Immigration Council. Whether through private companies or local governments, there is typically an agreement in place for the federal government to fund the facility while another entity sets it up, staffs it and runs day to day operations.
While DeSantis has mentioned the possibility of getting refunded by the Trump administration for the facility's cost — about $450 million a year — DHS officials have said the federal government is not currently funding any aspect of Alligator Alcatraz. Because Florida hasn't been paid, a formal federal contract likely doesn't exist for Alligator Alcatraz, Gupta said.
'This is the Trump administration and the state of Florida being shifty about what authority they're invoking, when it suits them,' Gupta said. 'My guess is that the only way we'll be able to find that clarity, if at all, is through continued litigation in the federal courts.'
Miami Herald staff writers Ana Claudia Chacin and Lauren Costantino, and Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau reporter Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Jeffrey Epstein saga: a new national security threat?
The Jeffrey Epstein saga: a new national security threat?

UPI

time26 minutes ago

  • UPI

The Jeffrey Epstein saga: a new national security threat?

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman speaks during a news conference about the arrest of American financier Jeffrey Epstein in New York on July 8, 2019, on sex trafficking charges, File photo by Jason Szenes July 30 (UPI) -- The sordid saga of the long dead and convicted predator Jeffrey Epstein not only poses a threat to Donald Trump's presidency, but it also conceivably threatens the credibility of the U.S. political system. Yet, an even more sinister and potentially dangerous threat lurks for the United States and its friends. The two threats are linked, ironically, by Epstein's ghost. Trump's MAGA base is furious that the promised Epstein files have not been released. What's worse is that that Attorney General Pam Bondi apparently informed Trump his name was in the file -- high-test fuel for that blaze. And, now, possibly to deflect attention, Trump and his director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, have accused former President Barack Obama of treason by interfering in the 2016 election with Russian help. In a nation as politically divided as America, any spark could ignite a political firestorm. Beijing, Moscow and others with malicious intent are intensely watching this saga. One conclusion must be that even greater opportunities exist today to interfere in United States and Western politics, not just exploiting this debacle. More importantly, creating new crises that manipulate and fracture political and social cohesion is a formidable danger. The U.K.'s Brexit is an example of manipulation. In the effort to withdraw from the European Union -- the Leave campaign -- former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his key adviser, Dominic Cummings determined that 1 million or so Britons lacked party affiliation. Then, using social media, this group was targeted with Leave propaganda generated by Cummings. That swung the vote to leave. Cummings was not alone. Substantial evidence exists that Moscow helped influence Brexit and the Leave campaign to weaken the Atlantic Alliance. And Moscow also interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections. Consider the infamous Steele Dossier. Among the allegations, the dossier accused Trump of lewd sexual behavior in Moscow. Suspend reality and imagine Vladimir Putin intervened to help elect Hillary Clinton as president in 2016. Following Cummings' lead, Russian trolls would have filled the Internet with deep-fake photos and invented stories exaggerating or inventing Trump's misconduct. One wonders who might have been elected 45th president. China and Moscow have significant interests in manipulating and fracturing American and Western cohesion. Putin is focused on winning in Ukraine, minimizing sanctions, and in the process, weakening Western solidarity. China is keen on reducing American economic and political influence, as well as annexing Taiwan. It would be negligent to not assume China and Russia are identifying critical weaknesses and potential future fracture points in the United States and elsewhere. In that event where might they focus? National political systems, given the Epstein debacle and national infrastructures, are the two most obvious candidates. Regarding the United States, the Constitution and its system of government based on checks and balances and a division of power among three co-equal branches are the best targets. A super-majority of Americans is highly distrustful and disdainful of government. Exploiting this distrust would not be difficult using the ubiquity of social media and the propensity of Americans to embrace conspiracy theories. Epstein and the Steele Dossier are two examples of how possible future fractures can be invented to sow political, social and economic disruption. The difference is that these effects could be even more destructive. Regarding infrastructure, Israeli and Ukrainian infiltration of two societies with seeming control of their borders and people to launch surprise attacks deep into Iran and Russia underscores how potentially vulnerable military bases and installations are to drones. And even more susceptible to drone attacks are electric generation and power grids, which could cause nationwide disruption. Kinetic attacks on military and civilian infrastructure are fraught with risk. But perceived threats are not. The strategy would be to use a variant of Orson Welles' provocation of massive public and psychological panic in his radio broadcast of War of the Worlds in 1938. Consider future Wellesian scenarios on steroids that threaten catastrophic events or apply fake news reports of spreading epidemics or environmental, financial and other disasters to induce fear and disruption. Concocting new and credible conspiracy theories would be part of this disruptive strategy. None of this is new. The USSR used the Comintern, Cominform and KGB to misinform, disinform, disrupt and provoke. The United States and the U.K. employed similar techniques principally against the Nazis in World War II. However, today is different because social and other media can turn these activities into political weapons of mass disruption. The United States will survive Epstein. Against determined adversaries who intend to create and exploit new political fractures, are the United States and the West ready? That answer is sadly no. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist, senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with Field Marshal The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Best Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.

Texas redistricting: Republicans propose new map, Democrats try to counter
Texas redistricting: Republicans propose new map, Democrats try to counter

USA Today

time26 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Texas redistricting: Republicans propose new map, Democrats try to counter

WASHINGTON − An ongoing effort by Republicans to redraw Texas' congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections continues to agitate Democrats across the country, as they search for ways to block or counter an initiative sought by President Donald Trump. The White House has urged Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and state Republicans to advance on a rare mid-decade redistricting, with the hope that shifting boundaries could help the party pick up as many as five seats in next year's race for control of the U.S. House. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, and the GOP are hoping the boost can help them hang onto their razor-thin lower chamber majority during the final two years of Trump's second term and amid the 2028 race for the White House. Texas Democrats balked when Abbott agreed to add redistricting to their to-do list for a 30-day special session that began July 21 in Austin. Now, liberal lawmakers are crying foul with blue state governors threatening tit-for-tat responses and Texas Democrats weighing their own limited protest options as the GOP seeks to make major changes to the critical voter boundary lines that make up the nation's second largest congressional delegation. Here's the latest to know on the controversial redistricting effort happening in the Lone Star State. What could a new map look like? Texas Republicans released their proposed new map on July 30. Ahead of the official release, Punchbowl News first reported that the anticipated redraw would shift district boundaries around Dallas, Houston, Austin and the Rio Grande Valley. There would still be 38 total seats in the Texas delegation under the new maps - leaving it second only to California's 52 seats. But five Texas seats would be redrawn in a bid that Republican envision giving their candidates a leg up with more GOP voters. Democrats who at risk of losing their spot in Congress include Reps. Henry Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez and Marc Veasey, according to Punchbowl. Democrats charge partisan law violation The rare push to redraw the boundary lines has led Democratic senators to accuse Trump administration officials of breaking a decades-old law limiting executive branch employees from engaging in partisan activities − such as advocating for a state's redistricting in order to benefit their political party. In a letter to the Office of Special Counsel, California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, along with Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse and Illinois' Dick Durbin, called for an investigation into members of Trump's White House and Justice Department, accusing them of breaking the Hatch Act. "The purpose of this redistricting push is to defeat Democratic Members of Congress and elect Republicans to affect the balance of political party power in the 120th Congress," the senators wrote. "While such goals are appropriate for a political party organization, they are not appropriate for executive branch officials," they added, "especially at the Department of Justice which must take greater steps to ensure it acts with impartiality." The Hatch Act does not apply to the president or vice president. Hakeem Jeffries took a trip to Texas House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, made a trip to Texas July 30, the same day Republicans released their proposed map. While there, Politico reported that Jeffries planned to meet with Rep. Al Green, a Houston lawmaker whose district could be caught in the crosshairs of a major map shake up. "We understand that this is all hands on deck for us in the Democratic Party," Green told Politico. Jeffries has been vocal in his opposition to the redistricting plans, saying in a July 15 press conference, "Texas Republicans are likely going to continue to act like political punks and bend the knee to Donald Trump's extreme agenda." Later, he told CNN, regarding Democrats' response: "Let me just simply say the maps in New York are not as fair as they could be." Redistricting arms race could ensue Jeffries is not the only blue state lawmaker proposing an equal and opposite reaction to Texas. Democrats coast-to-coast have promised a full-scale counterattack, should the Lone Star State move forward with redistricting. "We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine the voices of the American people," Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Democrat from Washington and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters at a meeting July 23. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has suggested a redistricting in his state to offset Republican actions. (But unlike in Texas where legislators decide district lines, Newsom does face a major obstacle in the form of a bipartisan redistricting commission, which oversees California's maps.) The response from Democrats has enticed other Republican-controlled states to potentially jump in too. Missouri Republicans are pondering a plan to give their party a geographical leg up, and legislatures in other states such as Florida and New Hampshire have the ability to reevaluate maps like Texas. Texas Democrats eye leaving the state Back in Texas, Democrats have a limited number of options to counter a GOP-controlled state House and Senate. Their primary tool is a controversial and seldom used move to flee the state and break the quorum necessary to proceed in the legislative session. State Democrats last used the measure in 2021 to protest new voting restrictions. After that episode, in which representatives halted operations for 38 days, Republicans approved a $500 a day fine for breaking quorum. The monetary punishment could be enough to give Democrats pause about leaving the state this time. However, the Texas Tribune reported deep-pocked Democratic donors are ready to assist and enable a potential walkout.

Texas Republicans propose new US House map with more winnable GOP seats
Texas Republicans propose new US House map with more winnable GOP seats

San Francisco Chronicle​

time26 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Texas Republicans propose new US House map with more winnable GOP seats

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a new congressional map that creates five additional GOP-leaning districts, bolstering their chances of maintaining control as they brace for a challenging midterm election. The redrawn map comes during a special legislative session called by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, as President Donald Trump urges Texas Republicans to reshape districts in the party's favor. Republicans hope the new Texas map will strengthen their chances of holding the U.S. House in 2026, and Trump officials have signaled their efforts may expand beyond the state, with similar pushes now underway in Missouri. Republicans in Texas currently hold 25 of the state's 38 seats, and the new map ups the total they could win to 30. All of those new 30 seats were won by Trump in November by at least 10 percentage points, leading to conservative optimism they can hold them even in what's likely to be a tough midterm environment for the party. The new seats come from making two Rio Grande Valley seats that have been narrowly won by Democrats recently slightly more Republican, collapsing two seats held by Democrats Lloyd Doggett and Greg Casar in the Austin and San Antonio area into a single liberal district and turning two Democratic-held seats in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area into GOP-majority ones. Rep. Greg Casar, one of the Democrats who could face a more difficult reelection under the new map, called the proposed changes 'illegal voter suppression,' pointing to the merging of his district with another Democratic-held seat.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store