What are the working conditions in US immigrant labour camps?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
US immigration detention and employer-run work camps are described in recent reporting and legal documents as expansive and often abusive: ICE operated in roughly 389 facilities as of February 2025 while acknowledging only 122 on its website (Vera) [1]. Human-rights groups, prosecutors and ICE itself document crowded, unsanitary housing, medical neglect, solitary confinement, physical and sexual abuse, and large tent camps that can hold thousands—Fort Bliss was planned to hold up to 5,000 people and leaked inspections found violations of dozens of federal standards [1] [2].
1. Widespread detention infrastructure and rapid expansion
The detention network is large and growing. Vera’s dashboard shows ICE was holding people in 389 facilities in February 2025 though ICE publicly acknowledged far fewer, indicating a sprawling, sometimes opaque system [1]. Independent reporting and policy trackers describe billion-dollar contracts to reopen private facilities and expand capacity, including using military bases and tents—moves that significantly increase bed space and geographic spread [3] [2].
2. Living conditions: reports of crowding, unsanitary quarters and medical neglect
Multiple sources document deplorable day‑to‑day conditions. Survivors and advocates report crowded cells, unsanitary quarters, limited plumbing and unsafe water; ICE’s own criminal indictments of traffickers describe victims housed in cramped, degrading camps with little food or safe water [4]. Vera and other rights groups report inadequate medical care that has led to preventable deaths and outbreaks, and Reuters describes detainees falling ill in remote camps such as the Everglades facility where tuberculosis was reported [1] [5] [4].
3. Abuse, isolation and special harms for children and marginalized groups
First‑hand accounts collected by Vera and long‑standing civil‑rights reporting describe physical, verbal and sexual abuse as part of detention experiences; thousands have been placed in solitary confinement for days, weeks or longer [1]. Children are often separated from caregivers and subjected to similarly harsh conditions, including cries heard from detention blocks, according to survivor testimony [1]. Sources also note racial disparities in treatment—Black immigrants face higher bonds and lower release rates—reflecting unequal outcomes within the system [6].
4. Militarized, tented camps and federal inspection failures
The conversion of military bases and tent camps has drawn sharp criticism. Fort Bliss’s tent camp was slated to hold up to 5,000 detainees and human-rights groups warned of heat, sandstorms and the risks posed by erecting large tented facilities in harsh environments; a leaked ICE inspection reportedly found the new facility violated over 60 federal detention standards in its first 50 days [2]. Civil liberties groups warned that using military sites as templates normalizes a more punitive, large-scale approach to detention [2].
5. Forced labor, trafficking and exploitative employer-run camps
Not all abusive camps are run by ICE; federal prosecutions show employer-run fenced work camps where migrant workers were forced to perform backbreaking labor for little or no pay, held with withheld documents, and housed in squalid, crowded conditions with threats of violence—described in a 2025 HSI indictment about Georgia agricultural operations [4]. ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations has publicly framed such cases as part of a broader “labor exploitation” enforcement posture [4].
6. Politics, profit and competing narratives
Expansion of detention ties to politics and private profit. Reporting documents Trump‑era and current initiatives to rapidly expand detention via contracts with for‑profit operators like GEO Group and CoreCivic and to reopen facilities across multiple states; critics argue this is driven by punitive policy goals and corporate incentives, while proponents frame it as border and law‑enforcement policy [3]. Advocacy groups call the funding an unprecedented investment in mass detention and deportation that inflicts harm; government statements emphasize enforcement needs [7] [3].
7. What reporters and advocates disagree about
Sources converge on severe problems but differ on framing and scale. Human‑rights groups and Vera emphasize inhumanity, long confinement and systemic neglect [1]. Government and enforcement press releases underscore prosecuting traffickers and protecting labor markets, presenting some operations as victim-centered investigations [4]. Media reporting highlights both ICE’s expanded capacity and failures in oversight such as the Fort Bliss inspection [2] [3].
8. What the available sources do not cover
Available sources do not mention comprehensive, facility‑by‑facility inventories of current working conditions across every camp, nor do they provide uniform, independently verified statistics on rates of medical neglect, abuse or mortality across the entire detention network—reporting is a patchwork of survivor testimony, inspections, prosecutions and agency data [1] [4] [2].
Conclusion — the record in these sources depicts a detention system with extensive capacity, frequent reports of crowding, unsanitary conditions, medical neglect, abuse and a political and commercial drive to expand detention. Sources disagree over policy justifications and the balance between enforcement and humanitarian risk; oversight failures—such as leaked inspection findings at Fort Bliss—underscore persistent accountability gaps [1] [2] [4] [3].