We’re Making Sure People in Immigration Detention Know Their Rights

Louisiana has more people in immigration detention than any other state in the country except Texas. Across the state, thousands of people are held in just nine Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, often in isolated regions where legal services are almost nonexistent. To put this into context, there are only about 10-12 pro-bono attorneys for the entire state, despite the immense need for legal support. This means that people detained in Louisiana essentially have no basic legal orientation or assistance in navigating the labyrinth that is the immigration legal system.

That’s why the ACLU of Louisiana has developed a unique series of visits to remote Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, combining direct legal assistance with on-the-ground advocacy and litigation. About every five to seven weeks, we, along with coalition partners like Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center, pile into cars stuffed with Know Your Rights (KYR) materials in up to 10 languages to drive to visit two to three detention centers over the course of a week. We’ve been visiting people in detention and distributing these materials for the past two years.

During these visits, we conduct group KYR presentations and one-on-one interviews with detained individuals to provide vital information that people in removal proceedings desperately need. These presentations, while general, also delve into crucial details about the asylum process, other available protections in the U.S., and how to seek release from detention.

Over the course of these visits, we also gather valuable information about issues that people are facing in detention and in their removal proceedings. While the facilities may skate by their annual inspections, these visits provide a direct line to people who can report what is happening on the ground. People we meet often tell us that we are the only lawyers providing any help in the region, and we have been greeted with tears of relief for providing the first friendly face who can explain why they are even detained while trying to seek asylum. This is especially true for individuals with limited English proficiency, or individuals who speak Indigenous or less common languages, and thus have not been able to communicate with nearly anyone while detained.

An individual holding a sign that says "With LGBT Refugees."

Asylum Seeker's Wrongful 6-Year Detention is Emblematic of a Broken System

Our client sought refuge from violence and persecution. Instead, ICE detained her for over six years.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

We intervene in individual cases when we can, advocating for individuals with ICE, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the immigration courts. Occasionally, we and our partners are able to represent individuals in particularly egregious situations — like the case of Jessica Barahona-Martinez, an LGBTQ+ asylum seeker who was detained for over six years despite winning asylum twice, until we and the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project filed a habeas petition seeking her release. These trips are an invaluable opportunity to document the cruelty and impact of ICE detention and support coalition efforts to shut down facilities in the region.

In future blogs, we will delve into recent KYR trips taken by the ACLU of Louisiana in addition to trips made by affiliates in other states, sharing insights about the broader challenges people face in immigration detention today — including lack of medical care and language access services, abuse and intimidation by facility staff, appalling conditions, and due process concerns. The experiences of people in immigration detention in Louisiana are by no means limited to the state, and instead, exemplify the systemic issues people in immigration detention face nationwide.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...

Search This Blog