Executive Summary

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities for detention and removal serve a distinct function within the broader carceral and administrative system. Unlike traditional prisons, which focus on punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, ICE facilities exist to manage temporary detention, removal proceedings, and deportation logistics. This white paper outlines the ideal criteria for location selection and infrastructure development for ICE facilities, compares them to prison siting considerations, and highlights the overlaps and divergences between the two.

I. Functional Purpose and Institutional Mandate

ICE Detention & Removal: Primary role is administrative custody, not punitive imprisonment. Duration of detention is often shorter and tied to case outcomes or deportation schedules. Facilities must be linked to transportation corridors (airports, highways) to enable efficient removals. Prisons: Serve penal, deterrent, and rehabilitative functions. Designed for longer stays and community reintegration planning. Often sited to balance public safety, economic impact, and community needs.

II. Criteria for Ideal Locations

1. Proximity to Transportation

ICE: Near international airports and major interstate highways for efficient deportation and inter-facility transfers. Prisons: Not transportation-dependent; often sited in rural or economically distressed areas to provide jobs.

2. Access to Legal Infrastructure

ICE: Must be reasonably close to immigration courts, consular services, and legal aid providers. Prisons: Require proximity to state or federal court systems but are less dependent on international legal access.

3. Medical and Humanitarian Access

ICE: High need for medical triage capacity given the transient and diverse population, including vulnerable asylum seekers. Prisons: Provide ongoing medical care for long-term inmates but typically within controlled internal systems.

4. Community and Economic Considerations

ICE: Siting must account for political sensitivity and public opposition; ideal sites balance community tolerance with workforce availability. Prisons: Frequently welcomed in economically struggling regions as sources of stable jobs.

5. Security and Scalability

ICE: Require flexible infrastructure to handle fluctuating detainee populations tied to migration cycles. Prisons: Designed for steady or predictable populations, with fixed capacity limits.

III. Methods for Infrastructure Development

Modular and Scalable Design ICE facilities should use modular units to expand or contract capacity based on migration trends. By contrast, prisons generally invest in permanent large-scale structures. Public-Private Partnerships ICE frequently relies on contracts with private operators; siting often follows availability of such partnerships. Prisons may be state-owned, federally managed, or privately contracted, but political resistance to privatization is higher in the penal context. Integration with Transportation Hubs ICE facilities may require dedicated shuttle systems to airports or contracted air charter services. Prisons do not need comparable logistical infrastructure. Digital and Legal Connectivity ICE detention requires videoconferencing for immigration hearings, consular meetings, and attorney consultations. Prisons also increasingly use digital visitation, but this is secondary to in-person family visitation considerations.

IV. Similarities in Siting Philosophy

Both systems require security-first construction, with perimeter control, controlled access, and hardened facilities. Both must consider public opposition, though ICE facilities often generate sharper political debate due to immigration issues. Both systems can be leveraged as economic development tools for host communities—though ICE siting is more politically fraught.

V. Differences in Strategic Location Choices

Factor

ICE Detention & Removal

Traditional Prisons

Primary Goal

Administrative custody, deportation logistics

Punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation

Ideal Site

Near airports, consulates, immigration courts

Rural/economically struggling areas

Duration of Stay

Short-to-medium term

Long-term, sometimes decades

Flexibility

Must scale with migration cycles

Fixed population projections

Community Role

Politically sensitive, often opposed

Economic lifeline for host towns

VI. Policy Recommendations

Regional Hubs: Develop ICE facilities in a hub-and-spoke model, with major hubs near international airports (e.g., Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles) and satellite facilities feeding into them. Modular Capacity: Use pre-fabricated, modular units to handle seasonal or surge migration events. Transparent Siting Process: Implement public consultation and economic impact studies to mitigate political backlash. Integrated Support Systems: Ensure facilities have contracts with medical providers, legal aid networks, and consular staff. Comparative Lessons from Prisons: Avoid the “prison town” economic dependency model; ICE facilities should remain administrative, not economic drivers.

VII. Conclusion

The infrastructure of ICE detention and removal facilities demands flexibility, logistical integration, and humanitarian considerations that differ significantly from the fixed, punishment-oriented model of prisons. While both require secure and politically viable locations, ICE facilities are uniquely tied to transportation corridors, international law, and fluctuating populations. By distinguishing their purposes and carefully selecting sites, policymakers can ensure both efficiency in enforcement and compliance with constitutional and humanitarian standards.