logo
Trump is jailing immigrant families again. A mother, father and teen tell of ‘anguish on a daily basis'

Trump is jailing immigrant families again. A mother, father and teen tell of ‘anguish on a daily basis'

Yahoo06-05-2025

default
default
When Jade and her family first arrived at the detention facility in Karnes county, Texas, she wasn't really sure what to think.
'I guess I was confused and scared,' said the 13-year-old. Her parents were doing their best to reassure her that everything would be OK, but she knew they were in danger of being deported.
She and her parents were one of the first to be sent to Karnes – one of two detention centers the Trump administration has commissioned to hold immigrant families. At first, she was the only kid – as far as she could tell – in the sprawling beige structure. Immigration officials had confiscated her family's belongings, including her phone and her Nintendo Switch.
There were a few books and games at the detention center, and a playground – but little else to distract her from her worries. 'I just didn't know what would happen to us,' she said.
The Texas-based legal non-profit Raices said it was aware of at least 100 families held at Karnes since early March, after the Trump administration restarted the practice known as 'family detention' – locking up children along with their parents. Those detained include families who had recently crossed into the US, as well as those swept up in cities across the country. Among the youngest detainees was a one-year-old child.
Jade and her parents, Jason and Gabriela, are among the first to speak out about the conditions inside Karnes since being released. Now, back home in Mississippi, Jade said she's still trying to make sense of what happened. 'I don't know how to explain it. It was weird,' she said. 'I still feel confused and scared.'
The Biden administration suspended family detention in 2021 amid growing reports of sexual harassment and violence, medical neglect and inadequate food. The Trump administration has not only reinstated the practice, but Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, has said the administration would seek to challenge a longstanding settlement that limits the amount of time children can be held in detention.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin said that 'adults with children are housed in facilities that adequately provide for their safety, security, and medical needs'.
But human rights groups and pediatricians have said that these facilities – which are operated by private prison companies – are inherently harmful. In a letter to the Trump administration, several leading healthcare and pediatric groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, emphasized that 'detention itself poses a threat to child health' and 'even short periods of detention can cause psychological trauma and long-term mental health risks'.
'Children experience time differently than adults do, and even brief periods of detention can have long term devastating consequences on a child's development,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. 'It's cruel.'
'I wanted to cry the whole time'
Jade and her family had fled a surge of violence in Colombia in 2022, and had managed to make a good life for themselves in Mississippi.
But things changed this year as the Trump administration ramped up its immigration crackdown. Jade was afraid to go to school, worried that immigration agents could come find her there, or take her parents while she was away. Jason and Gabriela had trouble finding work – employers had become squeamish about hiring workers without a legal status.
'It was a very, very tough situation – it had become impossible to continue living here,' Jason told the Guardian in Spanish.
So they decided to leave. Jade packed up her most prized possessions, including her Nintendo and all her favorite clothes. 'I was like, I'm excited,' she said. 'I'm going to Canada. I'm going to make new friends.'
But they never made it to Canada.
At first, they encountered Canadian border agents and tried to explain they were seeking asylum. But those agents told them they'd be ineligible, and turned them over to US border officials. 'That's when everything got out of hand,' Jason said.
Agents handcuffed him and Gabriela, and drove them to Plattsburgh, New York and then Buffalo. 'I wanted to cry the whole time,' Gabriela said.
'Our daughter had never seen us like that – handcuffed like prisoners,' Jason added.
In Buffalo, they were released from the cuffs, and sent via commercial flight to Texas. 'The whole time we are trying to reassure our daughter, 'Amor, nothing is wrong, it's OK,'' Gabriela said. 'But we didn't have anything to distract her with, because she didn't even have her Nintendo, her cellphone, she didn't have her tablet, she couldn't listen to music.'
By the time they entered the detention center – a sprawling concrete facility set against the dusty landscape of Karnes county, Texas – they were exhausted. 'We were in a state of shock,' Gabriela told the Guardian. 'Maximum shock – because we didn't know what would happen to us.'
Jade was too young to remember the violence her family had left behind in Colombia, but Jason and Gabriela's minds constantly flashed back to the threats and extortion they had faced. 'It was anguish on a daily basis,' she said.
During their first few days in detention, they didn't know who to call for help. 'How else do we fight for ourselves? We have nothing here,' Jason said. 'Each day like this was torture.'
Officials had confiscated all their things, and the family was given second-hand clothes and towels to use. They were able to buy minutes to make phone calls, but it was expensive.
Gabriela and Jason struggled to find the words to help their daughter. 'Imagine seeing your child sad because they can't go to school. And you can't even say, 'Let's go to the corner. Let's go get ice cream. Or some chips,'' Gabriela said. 'How do you explain any of this to a child? Your mom can't do anything for you, your dad can't do anything.'
'She's entering adolescence and everything that happens to her now will mark her. Everything that has happened could have broken her in some form, traumatized her,' she added. 'That's what distresses me as a mother.'
Eventually a few other families arrived at the facility, including siblings aged three, six and eight. The youngest ones didn't understand what was happening, so they weren't as scared as she was – but they were just as tired, Jade said.
She liked when the radio played at the detention center, especially when the Weeknd came on. 'That's my favorite singer,' she said. 'I just tried to sit on the grass and listen, and look at the sky.'
Relief finally came when they were able to connect with lawyers from Raices, who have been working with several families held at the detention center. Jade, Jason and Gabriela were finally released on 25 March – after about three weeks in detention – and their lawyers are now helping them seek legal status to remain in the US.
All the families that were at Karnes have since been transferred to a bigger detention facility in Dilley, Texas – which is more remote.
'The bottom line is that these individuals have final deportation orders from federal judges,' said McLaughlin of the DHS. 'This administration is not going to ignore the rule of law.'
Raices said that assertion is 'objectively untrue'.
Immigration judges are not the same as federal judges. And as a result of Donald Trump's asylum ban at the southern border, 'many families have not even appeared in front of immigration judges', said Faisal Al-Juburi of Raices.
At the same time, the administration ended several legal service and education initiatives for immigrants – narrowing opportunities for families inside the center to connect with lawyers, Al-Juburi said.
The immigrant rights organization also contests the DHS's assertion that Dilley has been adequately retrofitted for children.
The facility, which is run by the private prison company CoreCivic, is not a licensed childcare facility and thus a violation of the protections afforded children under the Flores Settlement Agreement, a decades-old consent decree that requires the government to hold children in the least restrictive setting and release them as quickly as possible.
How family detentions began, ended, and began again
The Trump administration isn't the first to detain families.
For decades, Democratic and Republican administrations have held immigrant families in specialized facilities – and the practice has elicited widespread criticism from pediatricians and mental health experts, and lawsuits from human rights groups.
The family detention system took its lasting shape in 2001, and particularly post-9/11. The Bush administration had wanted to ramp up immigrant detention, and promoted family detention as an alternative to separating families and sending children to shelters while their parents were detained.
Reports of human rights abuses in these facilities quickly followed. Families with children were held in prison-like conditions, with limited privacy and access to the outdoors. There was inadequate food and medical care, and reports of sexual abuse by guards.
But family detention didn't stop. Even as advocates sued the government and campaigned to close some family facilities, the government built others.
In 2014, as families and unaccompanied children began increasingly arriving at the US southern border, the Obama administration contracted with private prison companies to open the Karnes and Dilley facilities, and the US family detention program grew to its largest since the internment of Japanese Americans in the 1940s.
Legal challenges to the practice continued. In 2015 a judge ordered the release of children with their mothers, but then the first Trump administration pushed, unsuccessfully, to indefinitely detain families.
In 2018, a 21-month old toddler who became sick while being held at the Dilley detention center died of her symptoms shortly after being released.
Though the Biden administration stopped detaining families in 2021 – opting instead to track immigrant families via electronic monitoring and regular check-in appointments – it left in place most of the infrastructure to restart the practice.
And earlier this year, the Trump administration did just that.
Karnes, which the Biden administration used to hold adults, was recommissioned to hold families. Dilley, which had closed in 2024, reopened last month.
Karnes, operated by the private contractor Geo Group, is more like a traditional adult prison retrofitted with play sets, said Javier Hidalgo, the legal director at Raices. Cinderblock walls are painted with murals of zoo animals. Families are allowed to be together during the day, but at night, mothers and children sleep together while fathers sleep in separate dorms.
The South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, meanwhile, is more akin to an 'internment camp', said Hidalgo. Before it was a detention center, it was a migrant labor camp. But in the end, both centers are, 'essentially, jails', he said.
In past years, the centers were commonly used to hold families newly arriving at the southern border. Officials kept families detained while evaluating their eligibility for asylum, and released them into the US if they passed an initial screening.
But the Trump administration has suspended asylum requests at the border, and unauthorized crossings have dropped precipitously. Many of the families in detention now have been apprehended by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (Ice) officials in cities and towns across the US. Some were picked up at traffic stops, and others were arrested despite complying with orders to check in regularly with Ice.
'Some of the families in detention have been here for a long time,' said Hidalgo. And it's unclear how long the administration will be willing to detain these parents and children, including those with pending legal proceedings that could take months to resolve, he said. 'Keeping them detained seems like it's for the purpose of punishing families, and deterring them.'
At least one other family held at Karnes – asylum seekers from Venezuela including a six-year-old and an eight-year-old – had also been arrested at the Canadian border, while trying to leave, according to Raices. Others included the nationals of various countries, including Brazil, Romania, Iran, Angola, Russia, Armenia and Turkey.
'I've been working on issues of family detention for years,' said Mukherjee, who has litigated on behalf of children and families who have faced medical neglect and abuse at various facilities. 'And I can't believe we're doing the same thing again, almost 20 years later. Reopening of family detention centers exemplifies the cruelty that is animating the Trump administration's immigration policies.'
Back in Mississippi
Now that she is back in Mississippi, Jade said she feels calmer, she said.'But I haven't told most of my friends that I'm back, and I can't take it any more,' she said. 'I just told one friend, a good friend, and he said he wouldn't tell anyone else.'
She doesn't know how to explain to them what happened to her family, or how uncertain their lives still are. It's not like she knows how much longer they'll get to stay in Mississippi.
It could take months or longer for lawyers to work out their immigration case. In the meantime, they remain afraid of being swept up in the administration's immigration crackdown once again.
So they've been lying low, at home. It's a bit barren, because the family had either sold or packed up most of their things before heading to Canada. But they are glad to be able to wear their own, freshly laundered clothes, Gabriela said.
Jason was wearing a shirt printed with stars and stripes. When Jade pointed out to her dad that it also had the words 'Land of the free' ('Tierra de los libres' she translated) printed across the left side, the whole family began laughing.
He'd actually bought it to wear for the Fourth of July. 'Actually we have lots of shirts like this – we're quite patriotic,' Gabriela said. They have baseball caps with flags, and red, white and blue outfits for the whole family. 'We just fell in love with this country. We love the security, the people. It's a beautiful place where we live, in Mississippi. We are actually very much in love with this place.'
They never wanted to leave. 'It is tough, but I have told my wife and daughter that we have to live now, because life may end tomorrow,' said Jason. 'Here we have known freedom. Here we get to prolong life a little bit longer.'
The Guardian is not using Jason, Gabriela and Jade's full names in this piece to protect their privacy and safety.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rubio says U.S. is ready to meet with Iran after strikes, warns closing Strait of Hormuz would be "suicidal"
Rubio says U.S. is ready to meet with Iran after strikes, warns closing Strait of Hormuz would be "suicidal"

CBS News

time9 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Rubio says U.S. is ready to meet with Iran after strikes, warns closing Strait of Hormuz would be "suicidal"

Rubio says U.S. is ready to meet with Iran after strikes, calls closing Strait of Hormuz "suicidal" Washington — The U.S. is ready to meet with Iran following the U.S. bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday, while warning Iran that closing the crucial Strait of Hormuz would be a "suicidal" move for the regime. Rubio, appearing on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," urged Iran to pursue diplomacy after the U.S. carried out what the Pentagon called the largest B-2 operation in U.S. history in an effort to cripple Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. Rubio said the U.S. has no current plans for further attacks on Iran unless "they mess around." Rubio said the U.S. mission "was not an attack on Iran, it was not an attack on the Iranian people. This wasn't a regime change move. This was designed to degrade and or destroy three nuclear sites." "What happens next will now depend on what Iran chooses to do next," Rubio said. "If they choose the path of diplomacy, we're ready. We can do a deal that's good for them, the Iranian people, and good for the world. If they choose another route, then there will be consequences for that." President Trump continues to prefer the path of diplomacy, Rubio said, noting that the U.S. pushed Iran to make a deal to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions before the strikes. "We're prepared, right now, if they call right now and say, 'We want to meet, let's talk about this,' we're prepared to do that," Rubio said. The question of how Iran will respond has raised fears that the regime could seek to block ships from traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical choke point between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman that is used to transport about 20% of oil used around the world. Rubio declined to say whether the U.S. would take military action if Iran closes the strait, or whether the U.S. would consider attacks on oil facilities by Iran's proxy militias as direct acts by the regime: "I'm not going to take options away from the president, that's not something we're talking about right now in terms of being immediate." Rubio said closing the strait would affect the U.S., but it would have "a lot more impact on the rest of the world," particularly on China. "That would be a suicidal move on [Iran's] part, because I think the whole world would come against them if they did that," Rubio said. Retired Gen. Frank McKenzie, the former head of U.S. Central Command and a CBS News contributor, said the U.S. would be able to clear the strait if Iran lined it with underwater mines. "The Iranians do have the capability to mine the Strait of Hormuz. We have very good plans to clear that if we had to do it. We work on those plans all the time," McKenzie told Brennan later in the show. "It would be a blow to world commerce, for a period of time, but at the end, the strait would be cleared, and I'm pretty confident the Iranian navy would all be sunk at the end of that operation." The U.S. operation on Saturday, which the Trump administration named "Operation Midnight Hammer," bombed three nuclear sites in Iran, causing what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said was "extremely severe damage and destruction." The Pentagon acknowledged that capturing a complete assessment of the operation's effectiveness will take time. Brennan pressed Rubio on what specific intelligence pushed the president to make the decision to strike Iran. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress that Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon, testimony Mr. Trump declared "wrong." Rubio said Iran, ahead of the strikes, had "everything they need to build nuclear weapons," and pointed to assessments by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. "Here's what the whole world knows. Forget about intelligence," Rubio told Brennan. "What the IAEA knows, they are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need for a civil nuclear program. So why would you enrich uranium at 60% if you don't intend to use it to one day take it to 90 and build a weapon? Why are you developing ICBMs?" Brennan asked Rubio whether the U.S. will defend other nations in the Middle East if Iran launches attacks on their soil in response. Rubio said that's why U.S. bases — and about 40,000 U.S. troops — are positioned across the Middle East. "Well, that's exactly why they're there," he said, adding, "All those bases are there because they're afraid that Iran will attack them." Rubio insisted that the U.S. will defend Americans, including U.S. soldiers on military bases, from Iran and its proxies. "They'll attack us, is what they're threatening to do," he said. "So we'll defend our people, obviously. We'll defend our people. Well, they'll attack our bases. And those are our bases, and we're going to defend our personnel, and we're prepared to do that." Rubio said he didn't want to forecast what the U.S. might do if Iran retaliates. "There are no planned military operations right now against Iran unless they mess around and they attack Americans or American interests, then they're going to have a problem," he said. "Then they're going to have a problem, and I'm not going to broadcast what those problems are."

Prison group stuck between local opposition and limited space
Prison group stuck between local opposition and limited space

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Prison group stuck between local opposition and limited space

A crowd listens to a presentation on June 17, 2025, at Mitchell Technical College about the possibility of constructing a state prison near Mitchell. (John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight) On June 3 in Pierre, a gaggle of Mitchell city leaders delivered an unambiguous message to the state's prison construction work group. The city council, mayor, county commission, sheriff and various economic development officials were all in agreement: a patch of land south of Mitchell could easily host a new prison for 1,500 or more inmates, and their community would reap the benefits. That wall of official support has since cracked under the weight of fierce public opposition. A sea of people in red T-shirts – red for 'stop,' like a stoplight – have greeted city council members and county commissioners during the public comment portions of recent meetings in Mitchell. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The Davison County sheriff withdrew his support within days. Mitchell's mayor pulled back shortly thereafter. Both men said their backing was provisional and subject to change by the will of the community. About 50 of the people on hand for an informational session Tuesday night at Mitchell Technical College wore red T-shirts. To hear Dwight and Barbara Stadler of Mitchell tell it, support for a prison in their town had never extended beyond leadership offices. Neither of them wore red T-shirts on Tuesday, but both are firmly in the anti-prison camp. 'They didn't tell us about it until after the fact,' Barbara Stadler said of Mitchell's initial pitch to the Project Prison Reset task force. The opposition in Mitchell mirrors what state officials already faced in rural Lincoln County – and are beginning to face in Worthing – as they try to find space for a men's prison. The facility would ease overcrowding in the correctional system and replace the oldest parts of the Sioux Falls penitentiary, a facility that dates to the late 1800s. Locations of the potential prison locations that remain in play, plus the location of the original rural Lincoln County site that's been ruled out. The selection of land for a new men's prison south of Harrisburg in late 2023 spurred the creation of a nonprofit organization whose activism contributed first to that $825 million project's legislative defeat in February, then to the removal earlier this month of the land set aside for it from the list of possible sites for any future prison. Neighbors Opposing Prison Expansion (NOPE) also sued the state in hopes of forcing it to abide by local zoning rules. A Lincoln County judge rejected that argument; the state Supreme Court is considering an appeal, though its ruling would now matter for future state-local disputes, not the dispute over that specific prison site. No one in Mitchell has sued – the state hasn't decided to do more than study the land as an option – but community members have launched a Facebook group called 'NO Davison County,' whose page is populated with skeptical dialogue about the prison idea. The group had 1,200 members as of Wednesday afternoon. That Mitchell became a focal point at all is an outgrowth of a choice made at the June 3 meeting in Pierre. The Project Prison Reset group, convened by Gov. Larry Rhoden to find solutions for overcrowding after the initial prison plan's legislative loss, left four locations on the table at the end of its meeting that day, culled from a list of more than a dozen: Mitchell, a separate Lincoln County site in Worthing, Springfield and Sioux Falls. Open process and publicity draw wide range of offers for state prison site The latter two options would involve building on land the state Department of Corrections already owns, even though no tract of that land would be large enough for a prison the size of the one shot down by lawmakers in February. The request for proposals sent in April sought potential sites with more than 100 acres. In Springfield, the state would need to build within the footprint of Mike Durfee State Prison, which is less than 70 acres altogether. In Sioux Falls, it could mean building another floor onto the penitentiary complex's Jameson Annex, on land adjacent to the penitentiary (less than 30 acres), or on land west of town currently used to house juvenile offenders (68 acres). In addition to its vote to narrow down possible prison sites, the group opted to cap the price of any new prison at $600 million – far less than the $2 billion a consulting group called Arrington Watkins had suggested the state would need to spend on new facilities to address overcrowding over the next decade. Members of the NOPE group were celebratory on social media over the removal of the initial Lincoln County site from consideration. Since then, the group has shifted the focus of its activism to Worthing, where task force members are considering a site off Interstate 29 that's not far from the original Lincoln County site. The NOPE group discussed the Worthing site at a meeting in Canton on Tuesday. Today, the group will participate in an informational session at Worthing Elementary School. Seven days ago, Worthing Mayor Crystal Jacobson came out against a prison near her city. Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken said in 2023 that he'd prefer a new prison be built outside the city. He was more measured at the first Project Prison Reset meeting in early April. At that point, TenHaken testified that he wasn't going to advocate 'for a specific location,' but predicted that the task force would face the kind of pushback that's since appeared from the neighbors to any site large enough to hold a new prison. 'No matter where you decide, you're going to have a fight on your hands,' TenHaken said. The second project prison reset meeting was in Springfield, and included testimony from residents who told the task force that the prison was a positive force for the town. Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen and Corrections Secretary Kellie Wasko both took time at the end of the meeting to assure residents that the state's commitment to the Mike Durfee facility is solid. South Dakota corrections work group formally backs need for new prison The mayor of Springfield, Scott Kostal, was on hand for Tuesday's meeting in Mitchell and told residents not to fear a prison. The medium security facility in his town, once a university, has been a good neighbor, Kostal said, hasn't forced the city to pay more for public safety or infrastructure, and hasn't affected property values. Kostal said he's been surprised at how much his town's property is worth. 'If there's a problem with property values going down because of the prison, will somebody please call the Bon Homme County Assessor's Office and let them know?' Kostal said Tuesday. Springfield can't address the state's full slate of needs though, Kostal told South Dakota Searchlight in a Wednesday interview. There isn't enough space on the Durfee campus to build a 1,500 or 1,700-bed facility, which is what the most recent consultant's report suggests is needed to address overcrowding. There is some green space inside the fence and a parking lot that could hold a few hundred more inmates, according to a previous consultant's report, but Kostal says anything more substantial would put vocational and educational programming at risk. 'The only way you could remotely do that would be to remove those buildings or eliminate those programs,' Kostal said EDITOR'S NOTE: This story was updated with a correction to accurately reflect the role of Neighbors Opposing Prison Expansion in a meeting at Worthing.

Existing prison locations might be only politically palatable sites for a new facility
Existing prison locations might be only politically palatable sites for a new facility

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Existing prison locations might be only politically palatable sites for a new facility

Signs stand at the entryway to a Sept. 26, 2024, public forum hosted by Neighbors Opposed to Prison Expansion, which was working to upend South Dakota's plans for a new men's prison in Lincoln County. (John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight) South Dakotans are being held prisoner by their indecision about where they want to build their next prison. After all the debates and accusations, it's hard to know what to think about the project. It's difficult not to be cynical watching lawmakers get all hopped up about spending $600 million. We're supposed to think that's a bargain because the original plan called for spending $850 million. So even at more than half a billion dollars, there are concerns about the new place being built on the cheap. Much of this consternation originates in the way the prison project was initially handled during the Kristi Noem administration. Neighbors of the Lincoln County project weren't made aware that state land in their county was under consideration until plans were announced for the new prison. When they found out about it, their concerns didn't matter to Noem, who was known for a my-way-or-the-highway approach to getting what she wanted. That initial secrecy in the governor's office led to so much protest from neighbors, and so much rancor in the Legislature, that the original site is now deemed too politically toxic to host the prison. Prison group stuck between local opposition and limited space As a taxpayer, and as a lifelong believer that government should be conducted in a transparent manner, it has been heartening to watch Gov. Larry Rhoden's Project Prison Reset work group conduct public meetings as they have struggled to figure out the best, most politically palatable solution to South Dakota's prison problem. It certainly hasn't been pretty, but it has been a lesson in transparent government. The work group has conducted a series of hearings about the project site. When they finally make a decision, they should hold some more hearings, this time to figure out how South Dakota managed to invest more than $50 million in the original prison site without having the official OK from the Legislature. Because officials jumped the gun, taxpayers are left with $50 million in plans and infrastructure improvements that may never be used for a prison and possibly never be used at all. The work group has yet to decide what the best location is for the new prison. Many sites have been considered, but the three still standing are locations in Mitchell and Worthing or sites where the Department of Corrections already has prisons or land in Sioux Falls and Springfield. While the Worthing site may be, well, worthy, it's also in Lincoln County. The opposition of Lincoln County residents has already killed one viable prison site. It may be in the best interests of the work group to consider that the toxicity at the original site extends to the entire county. Like the original Lincoln County site, most other sites in the state, no matter how viable, run the risk of upsetting the project's neighbors as well as those folks who just like to be upset about something. There is already a not-in-my-back-yard movement in Mitchell, reminiscent of what happened in Lincoln County. 'They didn't tell us about it until after the fact,' Mitchell resident Barbara Stadler told South Dakota Searchlight at a recent community forum, in reference to Mitchell city leaders' initial pitch to the Project Prison Reset task force. The work group runs the risk of inspiring that kind of response with any new prison site they consider. That leaves the group with the choice to build new prison facilities on sites already run by the Department of Corrections. It's hard for neighbors to make a NIMBY complaint about a new prison project when the prison is literally already in their backyard. As consultants have explained, building on or near current prison facilities is not the best choice. It may, however, be the most palatable choice for South Dakotans and the choice most likely to earn the endorsement of the Legislature.

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