“Hutto: America’s Family Prison”
February 7th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
“Hutto: America’s Family Prison,” a short film by filmmakers Matthew Gossage and Lily Keber, details the prison-like conditions at the for-profit T. Don Hutto family detention center in Taylor, near Austin. Hundreds of immigrant men, women, and children - many of whom are fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries - are incarcerated at Hutto in conditions that, until recently, were abysmal. A grassroots movement to shut down Hutto and a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and attorneys with the UT Immigration Law Clinic has improved the lot of those warehoused at Hutto, but calls persist to shutter the detention center. Watch the film and then read the Observer’s interview with the filmmakers below.
Texas Observer: Some of the most harrowing accounts of being detained at Hutto came from young children. They evidently thought they had done something wrong to be in jail and would ask their moms or dads, “Why has God abandoned us?” Many kids said they were threatened by guards with separation from their families if they misbehaved, as your film shows. Moreover, a child psychologist for the defense in the ACLU-UT Law Clinic lawsuit against the feds gave a preliminary assessment based on interviews with several children and their mothers. The psychologist said he found evidence of regression (including a reversion to bedwetting and nursing among kids who had outgrown this), trauma, and PTSD among young children. Civilized nations consider children to have a kind of existential and legal innocence, and they enjoy special rights under long-established law. How did we, then, get to the point of locking minors behind bars for no reason other than they accompanied their immigrant parents - many of which are bona fide asylum-seekers - to the U.S.?
Matthew Gossage: I feel that several regressive and conservative policies all came together with the operation of Hutto. We have a conservative federal administration that wants to appear “tough on immigration” and a criminal justice system which is more and more driven by a profit motive. These two together encourage a system of dealing with immigration on a prison model, instead of addressing the social and economic causes of immigration.
TO: You call Hutto the largest family internment since WWII. “Internment” is a strong word, carrying much historical and political significance. Why did you choose that word and why do you believe Hutto constitutes internment?
Lily Keber: We chose the term ‘internment’ to place what’s happening at Hutto in a broader historical context. Of course one thinks of the Japanese-American internment during WWII. Families of Japanese, German, and Italian descent were all removed from general population because of the perceived threat they might pose. It took until the 80s, but finally politicians apologized for that and admitted it was unjust and motivated by racism rather than real military necessity. I think one day we, as a nation, will look back on what Homeland Security is doing right now and say the same thing.
MG: “Internment” is loaded in our culture and history. We hope that making this comparison will cause debate and conversation about other examples in our history where we have reacted with hysteria and fear towards people that aren’t part of the dominant power structure and have fewer civil rights.
TO: Homeland Security maintains that Hutto was opened to keep families together. But as your film shows there are less restrictive alternatives, such as keeping people under supervision or housing them in non-prison settings. Why do you think the authorities have written off these more humane and cheaper alternatives?
MG: I would love to hear Michael Chertoff (Director of Homeland Security) explain why he doesn’t use more humane options for immigration and border enforcement. But my opinion is that it is politically advantageous for the Bush administration to appear that they are taking a hard-line approach towards immigration to appease the Republicans’ more conservative and xenophobic base. There are also people that are getting very wealthy off these less-humane and more expensive detention facilities. These same people contribute financially to politicians of both parties to continue the growth of the prison industry. If more humane and cheaper alternatives exist, that by definition means that there will be less money for these prison corporations and contractors.
TO: What sort of access did Corrections Corp. of America (CCA) or the Dept. of Homeland Security grant you to film inside?
LK: None. They are extremely restrictive with media access. There was an official media tour about a year ago, but for that they cleaned out the jail, put teddy bears on the beds, literally shackled the pregnant women and bussed them out of the prison so no one could photograph them. When we tried to contact CCCA and DHS about getting access inside, it was the typical bureaucratic run around- ‘No, you have to call this other person’ or ‘No, that’s this other department’, that sort of thing. We tried very hard to get an interview with them and include their side of the story. But they declined. They made that choice, meaning they decided to continue hiding behind their veil of bureaucracy and secrecy.
TO: What was it like making this short film - did you set out to make an advocacy documentary or did you come into this project with an “open mind,” if that’s possible?
LK: I didn’t set out specifically to make an advocacy documentary. There was such a paucity of meaningful media available on Hutto in the beginning that we just were trying to get anything out there. A couple papers in Texas covered it, and there were some reports on Univision and “Democracy Now!”. But beyond that, there was very little information available. Very soon into the filming, though, I started to realize just how topical the issue is. The government built Hutto as a prototype, and had hopes of building family detention centers all across the country. It’s only because of the negative outpouring they’ve gotten about Hutto that’s made them re-evaluate their plans. We felt it was important to include that this outcry was just by ‘ordinary’ people, and how important it is for people to get involved.
MG: Yeah, I made no illusions to myself or others that this would be an objective film. Even before we started thorough research of Hutto, my perspective was clearly opposed to it. It is definitely advocating the reversal of these immigration policies.
TO: You end on a high note in the film: that the public activism and outcry surrounding Hutto succeeded. Talk a little bit about the movement to shut down Hutto. Obviously the facility is still open but conditions have evidently improved. Are people satisfied with that outcome? And what’s next for you, and for the movement against the growing immigrant detention complex in America?
LK: Conditions have improved. The barbed wire has come down, accountability is up. Are people happy with that as an end result? No. At its core, Hutto is still a for-profit prison channeling money into the pockets of the largest corrections corporation in the US at the expense of the taxpayer. It still is holding men and women and children who have no crime against them other than a civil violation. As long as our government sees fit to traumatize children, incarcerate adults with no criminal background, and inordinately and unjustly criminalize people of color who seek to enter the country, people will not be satisfied with the conditions at Hutto.
MG: Well, at the least we hope that our film puts detention on the radar of non-activists as to what our government’s actual policies are. I feel that when most people hear about “tougher immigration”, they imagine more Border Patrol agents in Jeeps hunting down drug dealers and terrorists. They don’t imagine incarcerating tens of thousands of people every day and paying corporations hand-over-fist to do it and build more prisons. And what’s next for us is to continue using media to educate and advocate for a more just immigration and prison system.
