Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detention Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, advocates urge Torrance County to end ICE/CoreCivic contract after detainee accounts
Summary
Multiple advocates and translated detainee statements presented at the Oct. 23 Torrance County commission meeting accused staff at the Torrance County Detention Facility of mistreatment, inadequate medical care, and discriminatory isolation; callers urged the county to reconsider contracts with ICE and CoreCivic.
County Vice Chair Kevin McCall opened public comment at the Torrance County Board of Commissioners meeting on Oct. 23 as several advocates read translated testimony from people detained at the Torrance County Detention Facility (TCDF).
Tiffany Wong, a legal services provider with Innovation Law Lab, read a statement from a detainee, Antonio Jose Hurtado Rodriguez, who said, “They throw us food like we're animals,” and that he had been placed in orange uniforms, held without blankets, and denied medical attention despite chronic health problems. Several other advocates — including PJ Podesta and Ian Philabaum of Innovation Law Lab and representatives from the New Mexico Immigrant Law Center — read multiple detainee-authored notes alleging delayed or inadequate medical care, psychological mistreatment, and discriminatory isolation practices.
“Doctors don't attend to us when we need them,” Podesta read from a detainee letter, summarizing recurring complaints that requests for care required paperwork and lengthy waits. Ian Philabaum told commissioners the testimonies, some collected as recently as January 2024, showed “mental, physical, and psychological torture” and chronic failures to address detainees’ medical needs.
Advocates asked the commission to examine the county's role as a contracting intermediary with ICE and CoreCivic and to consider whether local officials should end the contractual relationship. Commissioners asked organizational and licensing questions of the presenters but did not take an immediate action on the contract during the meeting.
The public comments were recorded alongside multiple other agenda items; no county staff or CoreCivic representative offered a direct rebuttal or explanation during the hearing.
