Forgotten Louisiana town gets new lease of life thanks to controversial Trump policy
Winnfield is a small rural town that is home to one of the largest Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the country - Winn Correctional Center.
With Donald Trump 's promise of the largest mass deportation in history, the 1,600 beds at the Winn Correctional Center continue to stay full.
As of Friday, there were 48,674 migrants in ICE detention, according to NBC News data.
A total of 65,682 illegal immigrants were removed within Trump's first 100 days, a Department of Homeland Security official told DailyMail.com.
Since then-Sheriff Cranford Jordan signed the ICE contract in 2019, the dying town's economy has been bolstered thanks to a steady income from the facility.
Jordan told The Washington Post that residents were hesitant at first, but after witnesses the economic benefits, they are on board.
'They said, "We don't need them in this country,"' Jordan said. 'They said, "The federal government wastes a lot of money." I said, "'I agree with you, but why not waste it here?"'
Sheriff Josh McAllister (right) said the income has allowed his department to hire more staff, add cameras to the jail, get a drug-sniffing dog and invest in programs
The contract helped the town avoid bankruptcy and paid off their new $7 million jail in four years, according to the former sheriff.
'They realized it's not a liability,' Jordan said. 'The benefits greatly outweigh the negatives. It's been an asset to our community, a dying community.'
ICE reportedly offered to pay three times the rate the state had offered to house inmates at the facility and guaranteed it would stay 60 percent full.
Winnfield's mayor, Gerald 'Scooter' Hamms, told the newspaper money from the ICE facility helps fund the city.
'Our primary duty is public safety,' he said. 'Revenue helps us do that.'
Recently elected Sheriff Josh McAllister said the income has allowed his department to hire more staff, add cameras to the jail, get a drug-sniffing dog and invest in programs for the inmates at their jail.
'Our office goes out and checks on the elderly. I don't charge our schools to provide resources officers. Because of that facility, I can do that,' he said.
Former mayor George Moss, who worked at the facility when it was a prison then recommended new hires to ICE, said that while some residents are wary the place being used to house migrants, the town could have died without it.
'These detention centers got a bad name,' he said, but 'Winn Parish probably wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them.'
The Winn Correctional Facility has also been subject to allegations of abuse and civil rights violations.
In October, the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) opened an investigation to the facility.
Several human right's group filed a complaint claiming detainees were denied access to translators, leaving them unable to request medical care or complain about abuse.
According to the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organization, officers pepper sprayed 200 inmates who were on a hunger strike in January 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Can a Netflix documentary explain what really happened to Jussie Smollett?
Few had it made at the beginning of 2019 quite like Jussie Smollett, an actor and singer who successfully navigated child stardom on the way to becoming a fixture on the hit TV series Empire. That was until late January of that same year, when news broke that Smollett had been attacked outside his downtown Chicago apartment in a possible hate crime. (Smollett is Black and gay.) The breakout details that Smollett shared early on – specifically, that he had been jumped by two Maga foot soldiers who doused him in bleach before placing a noose around his neck – both galvanized public supporters and made them cynical. (Really? They shouted: 'This is Maga country?' In Streeterville?) What's more, the police didn't do themselves many favors by registering their skepticism early and loudly. Ultimately, Smollett, who was suspected of staging the confrontation with help from two acting acquaintances, was charged with filing a false police report. When those charges were dropped in a deal with the county prosecutor's office, prompting cries of favoritism, Smollett was re-indicted, found guilty of framing himself and sentenced to five months of county jail. All the while Smollett was reduced to an object of global derision, with everyone from Dave Chappelle to Charles Barkley getting licks in. Explaining himself only made matters worse. Even though Smollett would win a conviction reversal on appeal in 2024 and has stuck to his original story, this idea that he manufactured outrage for clout continues to cost him his reputation and career. But is his story truly that far-fetched? 'That's the thing about this case,' says director Gagan Rehill. 'It has this gem-like quality where you turn it one way and it looks like one thing, depending on who you ask, depending on their experience, depending on who they are and their position in this case. There's nothing definitive.' Rehill's latest film, Netflix's The Truth about Jussie Smollett?, feels like the kind of thing that might well wind up on a criminology class syllabus. At the very least you could spend 90 minutes watching this documentary instead of pouring over the reams of studies that have been conducted over the decades about the inherently fragile nature of eyewitness testimony. The Truth is an intentional misnomer here; the film doesn't find the real perpetrators and isn't liable to leave viewers any more certain of the positions they've already staked out on Smollett's guilt or innocence. All that can be said for certain is: this case, still a head scratcher, is fit for the times. 'All you have to do is change a news channel, and you're given an alternate reality of what's going on out your window,' Rehill says. 'But in this case you legitimately have two competing narratives existing together.' The film spares no effort in getting down to the bottom of what exactly happened to Smollett. In addition to reviewing the stockpiles of police evidence and trial transcripts, the doc visits with a number of the main players in the case – including Smollett in an exclusive. As he begins sharing his version of events, this time with CCTV and other file footage providing additional context, you gain an appreciation for why the man would abandon the comfort of his luxury high-rise, at 2am, to brave -3C conditions for a Subway sandwich. (He had just arrived from Los Angeles, the fridge was bare, etc) Even his claim to being assaulted by a pair of white men gains credibility from two eyewitnesses (a neighbor and a security guard, both strangers to Smollett) who recalled seeing two people who fit that description lingering outside of Smollett's building – and testified to as much in court. Why wasn't a bigger deal made of this? Well for a start Smollett was tried in Chicago, not Los Angeles or New York. For another, cameras were only allowed for Smollett's post-trial sentencing – just in time for the world to watch the judge give him a good finger wag. 'The trial needed to be reported in a kind of measured, factual way,' Rehill says. Instead, it became an opportunity for overeager pundits to wallow in the void where genetic evidence, crime-scene video and other smoking guns might hang. 'I was defending myself against bullshit,' Smollett huffs at one point to camera. The documentary does now what the trial media should've done at the time: ask why we should believe the Chicago police. It bears reminding that four years before Smollett fell under suspicion, the city of Chicago came under fire for burying dashcam footage of an unarmed 17-year-old boy whom cops shot 16 times, sparking public outcry and protests. With help from investigative journalists Abigail Carr and Chelli Stanley, the film drops a few bombshells – not least footage from inside the county jail that appears to show the presumed attackers, Ola and Abel Osundairo, conspiring with police to throw Smollett under the bus. It lends credence to the idea that the fix was not only in, but that it came from on high. (Where else could police get the idea that Smollett hate-crimed himself as leverage for a higher Empire wage than from the mayor who came from the White House with the brother who happened to run one of Hollywood's largest talent agencies?) Special prosecutor Dan Webb explicitly went out of his way, after Smollett's conviction was overturned, to tell the public that this new state supreme court 'has nothing to do with Mr Smollett's innocence'. Even now Eddie Johnson, the ex-police chief who directed the investigation at the time, calls Smollett a 'narcissistic and troubled young man'. The public even scoffed with police when Smollett refused to hand over his cellphone for the investigation. In the film, Smollett doesn't just make the general case for his right to privacy. He reveals his true reason for contracting the Osundairo boys – to score a banned herbal supplement in Nigeria that might help him lose weight. And to think, semaglutides were just four years away from becoming widely available. 'Every contributor has their own viewpoint,' Rehill says. 'Some may call that an agenda. But these are just larger than life characters who just happen to be saying opposite things. It really makes you think about the nature of truth in society.' If Smollett can't be called a perfect victim, the documentary makes clear that the police aren't perfect villains either. Johnson, a Black Chicago native with roots in the Jim Crow South, took Smollett's lynching suggestion deeply to heart. Chief detective Melissa Staples, who identifies as gay, was affected by empathy early on as well. Training his camera lens like a loupe, Rehill has a knack for holding focus on one side of his figurative gem long enough for viewers to appreciate the clarity before pivoting it just enough to expose the flaws. Where that leaves his outsized characters in the end is anyone's guess. Smollett is slowly rebuilding his career, the Osundairo brothers are reveling in rightwing fame and the principal authorities have moved on – and yet so many of us are still stuck on this case. 'I wanted to leave the viewer in the end, like, not sure,' says Rehill, 'because I can see how one would not be sure. I understand why people would look into this case further. We live in a society where our trust in established institutions has eroded. So if people are going to go out and look at this again, why not put everything out there?' The Truth About Jussie Smollett? is available on Netflix on 22 August
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
US state claims TikTok uses addictive algorithms to target children
Minnesota has become the latest US state to launch legal action against TikTok, alleging the social media giant preys on young people with 'addictive algorithms' that trap them into compulsive consumption of its short videos. The lawsuit, filed in state court, accuses TikTok of violating Minnesota laws against deceptive trade practices and consumer fraud. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison stated: "This isn't about free speech. I'm sure they're gonna holler that. It's actually about deception, manipulation, misrepresentation. 'This is about a company knowing the dangers, and the dangerous effects of its product, but making and taking no steps to mitigate those harms or inform users of the risks." This legal challenge follows a flurry of lawsuits filed by more than a dozen states last year, alleging the popular short-form video app is designed to be addictive for children and harms their mental health. With Minnesota 's case, the total number of states pursuing action against TikTok now stands at approximately 24, according to Mr Ellison's office. Many of these earlier lawsuits stemmed from a nationwide investigation into TikTok, launched in 2022 by a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general from 14 states, focusing on the app's effects on young users' mental health. Mr Ellison, a Democrat, explained that Minnesota waited to file its complaint while conducting its own investigation. Sean Padden, a middle-school health teacher in the Roseville Area school district, joined Ellison, saying he has witnessed a correlation between increased TikTok use and an 'irrefutable spike in student mental health issues,' including depression, anxiety, anger, lowered self-esteem and a decrease in attention spans as they seek out the quick gratification that its short videos offer. The lawsuit comes while President Donald Trump is still trying to broker a deal to bring the social media platform, which is owned by China 's ByteDance, under American ownership over concerns about the data security of its 170 million American users. While Trump campaigned on banning TikTok, he also gained more than 15 million followers on the platform since he started sharing videos on it. No matter who ultimately owns TikTok, Ellison said, it must comply with the law. TikTok disputed Minnesota's allegations. 'This lawsuit is based on misleading and inaccurate claims that fail to recognise the robust safety measures TikTok has voluntarily implemented to support the well-being of our community," company spokesperson Nathaniel Brown said in a statement. "Teen accounts on TikTok come with 50+ features and settings designed to help young people safely express themselves, discover and learn. "Through our Family Pairing tool, parents can view or customise 20+ content and privacy settings, including screen time, content filters, and our time away feature to pause a teen's access to our app,' Brown added. Minnesota is seeking a declaration that TikTok's practices are deceptive, unfair or unconscionable under state law, a permanent injunction against those practices, and up to $25,000 for each instance in which a Minnesota child has accessed TikTok. Ellison wouldn't put a total on that but said, 'it's a lot.' He estimated that 'hundreds of thousands of Minnesota kids' have TikTok on their devices. 'We're not trying to shut them down, but we are insisting that they clean up their act,' Ellison said. 'There are legitimate uses of products like TikTok. But like all things, they have to be used properly and safely.' Minnesota is also among dozens of US states that have sued Meta Platforms for allegedly building features into Instagram and Facebook that addict people. The messaging service Snapchat and the gaming platform Roblox are also facing lawsuits by some other states alleging harm to kids.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Minister brands Farage ‘the very worst' kind of politician over asylum hotel claims
The 'very worst' kind of politicians 'try to drive people apart', the security minister has said in response to comments made by Nigel Farage over the use of asylum hotels. Dan Jarvis accused the Reform UK leader of fanning the flames of division that has seen protests flare up outside hotels housing asylum seekers after Mr Farage celebrated a council's successful legal challenge against one in Epping. Epping Forest District Council won an interim High Court injunction to stop asylum seekers being housed at The Bell Hotel, arguing it had become a 'feeding ground for unrest' in recent weeks after a series of violent protests resulted in multiple arrests and saw police officers injured. In response, Mr Farage wrote in the Daily Telegraph: 'Now, the good people of Epping must inspire similar protests around Britain. 'Wherever people are concerned about the threat posed by young undocumented males living in local hotels and who are free to walk their streets, they should follow the example of the town in Essex. 'Let's hold peaceful protests outside the migrant hotels, and put pressure on local councils to go to court to try and get the illegal immigrants out; we now know that together we can win.' The Reform leader also vowed to challenge the use of asylum hotels in any of the 10 local authorities controlled by his party. Asked about Mr Farage's comments, minister Mr Jarvis told Sky News: 'I've always thought that the best politicians try and bring people together, and the very worst politicians try and drive them apart.' He said the government is looking closely at the verdict in Epping as the Home Office considers launching an appeal. He also confirmed officials are looking at alternative accommodation for up to 138 asylum seekers currently being housed at The Bell Hotel. Home secretary Yvette Cooper made a last-minute attempt on Tuesday to halt their removal, arguing that other councils would make similar applications for migrant accommodation in their areas. Labour is now bracing for dozens of local authorities to challenge the use of asylum hotels in their areas on similar grounds, with Home Office lawyers having warned that the decision could 'substantially impact' the government's use of the accommodation. On Tuesday night, Conservative-run Broxbourne borough council announced it was considering pursuing its own injunction. The council revealed it would 'take legal advice as a matter of urgency' about attempting to shut down a four-star asylum hotel in the Hertfordshire town. Meanwhile, the leader of South Norfolk District Council, which covers the town of Diss where a hotel housing asylum seekers has also been the subject of protests, said the council would not go down the same route. Conservative leader Daniel Elmer said the council was using planning rules to try to ensure it was families being housed in the area rather than single adult males. He said to do so, which would effectively convert the hotels into hostels, should require a change of use. The Home Office had warned the judge that an injunction in Epping could 'interfere' with the department's legal obligations, and lawyers representing the hotel's owner argued it would set a 'precedent'. The Bell Hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch suggested that the migrants housed at the hotel 'need to be moved out of the area immediately', while her shadow home secretary Chris Philp said that 'residents should never have had to fight their own government just to feel safe in their own town'. He said: 'Local residents have every right to feel safe in their own streets and every right to object when their community is treated as a dumping ground.'
