08/08/2026
Teaching moment: This is the fourth installment in a series of recommendations for bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform following the Trump administration, proposing the development of the infrastructure along the southwest border.
Note: I understand that some of these recommendations may be seen as controversial, but I believe they are essential for ensuring consistent enforcement of immigration laws in future administrations. My aim is to promote meaningful progress, and even partial implementation by Congress would mark a significant step toward actionable reform. I do not claim to have all the answers; rather, I am contributing to this important effort to the best of my ability. Next week, I will share my recommendations regarding our current undocumented population.
Copying Claudia Fowler, Candace Wicks, Veronica Escobar, Bishop Mark Seitz, and Christina Lorey
Please share with others.
Topic:
The federal lands along the Southwest border are managed by five different federal agencies. However, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) has access to hundreds of miles of these lands under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of the Interior for border security purposes. Additionally, Congress has granted the DHS Secretary expanded authority to take action on federal lands to secure the border. This authority enables the development of necessary infrastructure along the Southwest border, which has long been overdue. Beyond closing asylum loopholes currently exploited by transnational criminal organizations to smuggle undocumented immigrants into the United States, I recommend taking the following measures to strengthen the southern border.
Place all the transportation requirements under one contractor:
Upon the merger of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), CBP needs to consolidate all its transportation requirements along the Southwest border under a single contractor. Currently, the United States Border Patrol (USBP) is receiving limited contractor support for its transportation needs, such as transporting apprehended individuals to processing stations, as most transports are handled by agency personnel.
On the other hand, ERO relies on multiple contractors to meet its transportation requirements. In El Paso alone, four different contractors are employed, each with varying costs and jurisdictional boundaries. This often creates confusion regarding which contractor is responsible for specific tasks.
By using a single contractor, CBP can manage transportation costs more effectively and provide structured support to its officers and agents. This change could also enhance communication between the contractor and the agency, as CBP would only need to coordinate with a single contractor for assistance.
Place the detention facilities along the Southwest border:
At times, particularly during surges at the Southern border, ICE has utilized over 200 facilities nationwide to detain unlawfully present immigrants who are in proceedings or awaiting removal from the United States. According to federal government data from April 2019, the top five states with the largest number of detained individuals per day were Texas (14,481), Louisiana (4,415), Arizona (4,405), California (4,353), and Georgia (3,719). Obviously, these numbers have grown exponentially under the current administration.
Federal government data indicates that over 70 percent of individuals in immigration detention are held in privately-run facilities, with the GEO Group receiving more taxpayer dollars for this purpose than any other contractor for ICE. In fiscal year 2017, for instance, the GEO Group received $184 million, while the Corrections Corporation of America, now known as CoreCivic, received $135 million.
However, due to the Trump administration's aggressive push for immigration detention and deportation, these FY 2017 amounts are just a fraction of the revenues these companies generated in FY 2025. By then, both the GEO Group and CoreCivic reported over $2 billion in annual revenue each. Specifically, the GEO Group earned $2.63 billion, whereas CoreCivic earned $2.21 billion.
To utilize privately-run facilities, ICE must negotiate costs with local authorities (e.g., local sheriffs) and government contractors. This leads to varying costs among facilities, with some being significantly more expensive than others. Labor costs, which account for approximately 70 percent of total facility expenses, contribute to these variances, especially since the Service Contract Act (SCA) of 1965 restricts ICE’s ability to negotiate labor rates in its detention and ground transportation contracts.
Additionally, the design and physical layout of a facility can impact the number of staff needed for monitoring, which in turn affects labor costs. Older facilities often require more personnel due to outdated layouts that create more blind spots.
Other factors influencing cost include the distance between a facility and related locations (e.g., immigration courts, nearby competing detention facilities) and the facility's geographic location. Facilities in the northern United States tend to be more expensive than those in the south.
Complicating matters, during crises such as border surges, local authorities often increase their normal bed space rates, knowing that once the surge subsides, ICE will stop using their facility. This can lead to ICE paying exorbitant bed rates during peak periods.
The use of nationwide facilities to address Southwest border needs creates complicated transportation issues and high transportation costs. ICE employs various transportation contractors with differing rates and must frequently transport detainees across the country as bed space becomes available. This was a recurring issue for the ERO Atlanta Field Office during the 2018 surge.
For example, while ERO Atlanta's facilities are thousands of miles away from San Diego, they often accepted San Diego's detainees when bed space was available. ICE incurred substantial costs flying these detainees across the country, with daily scheduled charter flights averaging $8,577 per flight hour. They also faced frustrating delays associated with air travel, such as cancelled or postponed flights due to mechanical issues.
To improve efficiency and reduce costs in detention operations, the Department, with Congressional support, should utilize land available through the MOU with other agencies to construct its own facilities, addressing all of CBP’s detention needs along the Southwest border.
Additionally, the Department should engage a single transportation contractor and consider using one contractor to manage all detention facilities along the Southwest border, or at least one contractor for each sector.
I also propose that CBP establish a 10,000-bed detention facility in each USBP sector, each with a guaranteed minimum (GM) rate based on 30 percent capacity. This approach would provide financial stability for contractors interested in working with the federal government and incentivize cost reductions during periods of lower activity along the border.
Implementing this proposed structure would eliminate the need to transfer detainees to facilities located in the interior of the country, thus avoiding the varying bed space costs associated with different contractors. Additionally, it would lead to significant savings for taxpayers by reducing reliance on air transportation and allowing for a standardized rate for bed space and transportation costs negotiated with a single contractor. This approach would also help the Department manage its bed space more effectively.
Furthermore, the extra funds could be utilized to hire enough judges and medical staff to accommodate a large detainee population by offering higher wages. These funds could also be allocated to make the facilities more aesthetically pleasing, providing them with a less prison-like appearance.
I will elaborate on this suggestion later when outlining my plan to seek guidance from the private sector. I also recommend not placing any detainees in these facilities until they are fully constructed and adequately staffed, particularly with the required number of medical personnel.
Place Family Residential Centers and Office of Refugee Resettlement Shelters in each USBP Sector along the Southwest Border:
In the effort to improve the management of immigration at the Southwest border, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) should collaborate with Congress to establish Family Residential Centers (FRCs) and ORR shelters at each CBP Sector. This will facilitate the accommodation of most immigrant families and unaccompanied alien children (UAC) entering the area.
To reduce the risk of separating families—a significant concern during previous border surges—I recommend that DHS/CBP and HHS/ORR work together to create shelters that combine the existing FRC and ORR requirements into one facility at each sector. Additionally, to address the legal challenges associated with detaining families, it would be better to dismantle the current flawed FRC structure. Instead, I propose building each ORR shelter adjacent to facilities specifically designated for the parents and adult siblings of these families. This way, families can remain together in a controlled yet humane environment.
I also suggest employing contractors and ORR staff to provide oversight at the ORR shelter and adjacent facilities. Similar to the detention facilities, having a single contractor oversee all shelters and adjacent facilities at each CBP Sector along the Southwest border would streamline operations. This proposal aligns with the March 1, 2003, Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which transferred responsibilities under U.S. immigration law regarding the care and placement of UAC from the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Congress would only need to amend this section to allow ORR to also care for accompanied alien children (AAC) who are part of apprehended families.
The corresponding contract could reflect the capacity requirements of the detention facilities mentioned earlier. However, it should include separate custody standards for the ORR shelter and adjacent facilities.
Furthermore, I strongly recommend that CBP and ORR agree to establish one 10,000-bed ORR shelter for UAC and AAC (aged 10 years and older); one 5,000-bed facility for adults (2,500 for females and 2,500 for males) and AAC (under the age of 10); and another 5,000-bed facility for adults (2,500 for females and 2,500 for males) who solely have AAC (aged 10 years and older) placed in the ORR shelter. A communal area should also be included in the plan to allow all family members to spend time together during the day.
Like the proposed setup for detention facilities, the ORR shelter and adjacent adult and AAC facilities should maintain a gross margin (GM) rate of 20 percent capacity. This approach will provide the contractor with the financial stability needed to engage with the federal government while incentivizing cost management during periods of reduced activity at the border.
This proposed configuration aims to disrupt smuggling operations indirectly and significantly lower transportation costs. Currently, UACs are transported to various parts of the country (e.g., Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, etc.) to be placed in shelters and subsequently released to sponsors, who are sometimes smugglers posing as legitimate sponsors. This new arrangement should not only save taxpayer money but also help the Department of Homeland Security disrupt smuggling networks by eliminating the need to transfer UACs across locations, which currently benefits illegal smuggling organizations.
Place Aircraft Hubs in each USBP Sector:
Currently, the twenty-five ERO (Enforcement and Removal Operations) field offices coordinate with ICE Air Operations, based in Mesa, Arizona, to schedule removal travel and domestic transfers using commercial airlines or charter aircraft. ICE operates five Air Operations locations across the United States: San Antonio and Brownsville in Texas, Alexandria in Louisiana, Miami in Florida, and Mesa in Arizona.
ICE Air Operations can also conduct removal missions to Central American countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, as well as to the Caribbean and South America. Additionally, they can carry out special high-risk charter missions to Europe, Asia, Africa, or anywhere else in the world.
If CBP commences with its own custodial authority, it should begin conducting its own transfer and removal flights. Each USBP, with support from CBP Headquarters and through the formal acquisition process, should have dedicated aircraft and a Hub, enabling it to manage its own removal flights to Central America. This is important as the Sectors represent the majority of Central American nationals currently being removed. They could also use the aircraft for special high-risk charter missions, similar to what ICE is currently doing.
Furthermore, to help the Sectors manage their bed space usage efficiently, the Department and CBP Headquarters should grant the Sectors the flexibility to coordinate necessary domestic detainee transfers among themselves when needed. This coordination will help streamline the transfer process promptly, which is crucial during times of border surges.
Implementing this change will require extensive coordination between CBP and ICE before CBP can assume this responsibility, as it poses a significant challenge. In addition to acquiring the necessary resources to support Air Operations (such as aircraft, the establishment of Hubs, and staffing), CBP will face a steep learning curve. They must navigate a range of domestic and international agreements, guidelines, procedures, regulations, and laws that must be satisfied—such as airport approvals, contractual requirements, FAA regulations, international agreements, and venue considerations—before ICE can transfer this responsibility to them.
Place Central Processing Centers in each USBP Sector:
During the fiscal year 2018, the Southern border surge resulted in extremely high capacity and time-in-custody issues for CBP at the Ports and Stations due to the overwhelming number of incoming cases. This led to overcrowded holding cells, as the USBP agents and CBP officers could not process cases quickly enough to keep up with the influx. Furthermore, the Ports and Stations were not designed to accommodate such a large volume of cases.
Compounding the issue, a significant percentage of CBP’s apprehensions in FY 2018 involved immigrant families and unaccompanied children. This unique challenge became particularly difficult to manage because CBP had very limited holding cell space for families and children. As a result, many families and children ended up in overcrowded conditions, provoking a considerable outcry from activists, politicians, and local and national media outlets. I still remember the photographs that captured the overcrowding situation and the articles portraying USBP as inhumane for holding children in such conditions. This also placed CBP in a legal predicament, as they violated the Flores Settlement on multiple occasions due to the sheer volume of cases. The Flores Settlement requires the transfer of immigrant families and unaccompanied children to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within 72 hours.
Another challenge during the border surge was that CBP had to wait for a bed to become available in detention facilities, family residential centers, or local shelters before they could transfer individuals or families out of the Ports or Stations, leading to frustrating delays.
To prevent such overcrowding situations in the future, Congress and the Department of Homeland Security need to agree on the construction of Central Processing Centers (CPCs) at each USBP Sector, with the capacity to temporarily hold up to 5,000 detainees. This would enable CBP to efficiently move individuals and families from their Ports and Stations, as medical screenings and processing would take place at the CPCs instead. Consequently, they would no longer have to wait for available bed space before transferring individuals or families, significantly reducing the burden on Port and Station facilities.
In addition to improving CBP's operational efficiency, developing this infrastructure would help the Department address some of its current legal challenges and costs while benefiting the local communities along the Southwest border.
Reduce Venue Issues:
For various reasons, the DHS sometimes relocates detainees after charging documents have been filed. The Immigration Court does not automatically change the venue when DHS moves a detainee to a location outside the court's administrative control where the case is pending. Additionally, the submission of a Form I-830 by DHS does not itself constitute a motion to change venue (COV). If DHS fails to produce a detainee because they have been moved to another location, the Immigration Court retains venue and administrative control over the case. If DHS presents the detainee in a different court location, and there is no valid order changing the venue or a new charging document, then venue and administrative control remain with the original court, except for bond redetermination requests, if applicable. However, this does not prevent the detainee or their legal representative from filing a motion to change venue once the detainee is moved to a detention facility outside the administrative control of the court handling the case.
In 2018, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and several immigration attorneys expressed concerns, disagreements, and frustrations with ICE due to the large number of COV cases that arose that year as a result of the surge at the Southwest border. Due to the significant influx of cases, bed space quickly became scarce along the Southwest border, leading to daily transfers of detainees to other locations (e.g., from El Paso, TX, to Atlanta, GA). Consequently, ICE's ERO and the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) had to scramble to provide last-minute notifications of these transfers to the detainees’ legal representatives and EOIR. This situation created considerable confusion and chaos for all parties involved.
The improvement of infrastructure along the Southwest border is expected to reduce the need for transferring detainees to other locations and decrease the number of COV cases, as there will be adequate bed space at local facilities to meet demand.
Significantly Reduce Costs Tied to Domestic Transfers:
A study conducted by the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies calculated that ICE Air Operations transported approximately 1.73 million detainees on nearly 15,000 flight missions over eight years, from October 1, 2010, to December 5, 2018. The study found that 28.78% of these flights involved internal or domestic transfers, which equates to around 500,000 detainees moved from one location to another within the United States on just over 4,300 flights (4,317).
By multiplying the average cost per flight hour of $8,577 by the total number of domestic flights (4,317) over the eight years, we arrive at a total of $37,026,909. If we then multiply this amount by an average flight duration of 5 hours—a conservative estimate—we can see that the Department could have saved nearly $200 million ($185,134,545) in taxpayer money during this period by eliminating domestic transfers, which represents a substantial savings.
Create new jobs:
The current national average detainee-to-staff ratio for ICE detention facilities is 3.1 to 1. If Congress and the Department agree to the proposed plan to develop infrastructure along the Southwest border, it will create thousands of jobs that will benefit the local community. For example, in El Paso, TX alone, even at the general management (GM) level, over 2,200 jobs will be created: 1,000 jobs for the Detention Facility, 666 jobs for the ORR Shelter, and 666 jobs for two adjacent facilities. This estimate does not even include the additional jobs that will arise from the transportation contract.
Strengthen the economy for border cities:
Local, state, and federal governments significantly influence the economy, particularly along the United States-Mexico border. The border itself creates unique economic conditions that these government entities help shape. Although policymakers in the federal government are based in Washington, D.C., their decisions often have a direct impact on border cities. Consequently, citizens and businesses in these areas find themselves dependent on these policymakers for their economic well-being.
Developing infrastructure along the Southwest border can lead to the creation of new jobs. The thousands of additional jobs and salaries generated will result in more money being spent within local communities. This increased spending can create a ripple effect, helping local businesses thrive and possibly even leading to the establishment of new enterprises in the border cities.
Reduce the possibility of spreading infectious diseases:
As previously mentioned, a study conducted by the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies found that ICE Air Operations transported approximately 1.73 million detainees on nearly 15,000 flight missions over eight years (from October 1, 2010, to December 5, 2018). The study revealed that 28.78% of these flights involved internal transfers, meaning roughly 500,000 detainees were moved from one location to another within the United States.
The study identified the airports involved in ICE Air operations, which included the agency's five main hubs: Mesa, AZ; Brownsville, TX; Miami, FL; San Antonio, TX; and Alexandria, LA. Additionally, the operations covered 83 other airports across the country, including some in “sanctuary” jurisdictions like Seattle, WA; Oakland, CA; and Minneapolis, MN. In total, there were 88 airports involved in ICE Air operations during those eight years.
It's important to note that internal transfer flights are costly; ICE Air spends an average of $8,577 per flight hour for charter flights, regardless of the number of passengers. Congress and the Department should recognize that these internal transfer flights may also increase the risk of spreading contagious diseases within the United States.
According to the study, ICE Air transferred an average of approximately 62,200 detainees from one location to another within the United States each year. From my experience, most of these transfers begin at locations along the Southwest border and end far from the border (e.g., from San Diego, CA, to Atlanta, GA). If a detainee is infected and then transferred, that infectious disease could quickly spread into the interior of the United States.
Compounding the issue, ICE Air flights can carry up to 135 detainees and are staffed by a pilot, flight attendants, security guards, a flight nurse, and one or more ICE agents. The crew typically does not reside at the origin or destination locations. Furthermore, it is standard practice for ICE Air flights to stop at multiple locations to drop off detainees, allowing ICE to keep all its facilities at capacity. This is a significant reason why 88 airports were involved in operations during those eight years.
Taking all of this into consideration, it is clear that these flights can easily contribute to the spread of infectious diseases. Even if just one infected detainee boards a flight, there is a considerable chance that multiple locations in the interior of the United States may be exposed to the virus. During a pandemic (e.g., COVID-19), this could have catastrophic consequences. The study did not account for internal transfers that occur daily via bus along the Southwest border to cities such as Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; Phoenix, AZ; and San Antonio, TX. This highlights the need for improved facilities and infrastructure along the Southwest border.
Joe Sifuentez
Former (Retired) ICE Official
Lifelong Republican turned Moderate Democrat
Advocating for Good and Peaceful Governance
Aiming to protect lives, not put them at risk
