South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem has levelled a bombshell accusation against the Biden administration, claiming it intentionally selected one of America's most notorious prisons to hold immigration detainees because of its fearsome reputation.
The facility in question is the Louisiana State Penitentiary, infamously known as 'Angola'. This maximum-security prison, built on the site of a former slave plantation, has a long and dark history marred by allegations of violence and human rights abuses.
A Deliberate Choice of Notoriety
According to Governor Noem, this was not an arbitrary decision. In a detailed letter, she stated that officials from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) explicitly told her team that Angola was chosen precisely due to its notoriety. The implication, she suggests, is that the harsh conditions would serve as a deterrent.
This revelation has sent shockwaves through advocacy circles, with many questioning the ethics and legality of using a prison's reputation as a tool of immigration policy.
Inside the 'Alcatraz of the South'
Angola's grim credentials are well-documented:
- It is the largest maximum-security prison in the United States.
- It operates as a working farm, with a history critics compare to forced labour.
- The prison has been the subject of numerous lawsuits and investigations over decades concerning inhumane conditions and inadequate medical care.
- It houses primarily individuals serving life sentences.
Placing civil immigration detainees, who are often awaiting hearings and not convicted of crimes, in such an environment represents a significant and controversial shift in policy.
Official Responses and Mounting Pressure
The Biden administration has yet to provide a detailed public rebuttal to Noem's specific claims. However, the choice of Angola has already faced fierce opposition from a coalition of over 100 advocacy groups.
These organisations have condemned the move, arguing that it knowingly subjects detainees to dangerous and traumatic conditions. Legal challenges are widely expected to follow, focusing on the constitutionality of confining non-criminal detainees in a facility with such a severe reputation.
This development marks a new flashpoint in the fierce national debate over US immigration enforcement and the treatment of those within its system.
