Letter: Questions remain over McHenry County’s ICE contract

To the Editor:

Controversy continues to dog McHenry County’s contract with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for holding its detainees in our jail.

Three nagging issues remain: the compensation received from ICE, the profit and loss conundrum and the matter of equal protection.

Our negotiated per diem rate currently is $95. Other entities around the country receive less; some receive more. Do we have a fair arrangement with ICE? It’s not clear.

Then there’s the matter of profit and loss. Do we receive more money than what it costs to house detainees? The county’s assertion is yes. However, if the parade of obfuscated figures that commenced with the 2005 inauguration of the contract are taken in aggregate, then I am unconvinced.

Does the arrangement cost more than what we take in? If yes, then local taxpayers are subsidizing the federal government. Who wants that?

That said, a number of ICE detainees have not been criminally charged. If people are being confined unnecessarily, do we really want to be making a profit off of their misery?

Finally, is there an equal protection issue lurking? If migrants are being held at one per diem rate, and McHenry County prisoners at another, do we have an equity problem?

I believe an independent entity now should be brought in to perform a forensic audit of the contract with ICE. If our elected officials are reticent to do so, then only one question will remain: Is McHenry County prepared to be known, rightly or wrongly, as Little Guantanamo?

Scott K. Summers

Harvard