‘Alligator Alcatraz’ detainees on hunger strike for 10th day, protesting conditions – NBC News

Report on Human Rights and Sustainable Development Goals at a South Florida Immigration Facility

Introduction: Hunger Strike Highlights SDG Deficiencies

A hunger strike has reached its tenth day at the South Florida immigration detention center known as “Alligator Alcatraz.” Detainees are protesting conditions they describe as inhumane and dangerous, bringing to light significant challenges to the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Violations of Core Sustainable Development Goals

The situation at the facility indicates a failure to meet fundamental targets outlined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The primary areas of concern include:

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The protest is a direct response to the alleged failure to provide adequate nutrition. Detainee Pedro Hernández, who was hospitalized during the protest, stated, “I’m not going to eat another plate of food until they show us respect.” This action underscores a critical lapse in ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all people.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: Reports from an emergency town hall describe the conditions as “substandard,” with detainees allegedly not receiving adequate “hygiene, or medical care.” The hospitalization of a detainee during the strike provides direct evidence of the severe health risks present, which run contrary to the goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This goal is compromised on multiple fronts. The detention of individuals during routine check-ins and allegations by civil rights groups that detainees are denied access to legal counsel point to a lack of due process and access to justice. The protest itself signifies a breakdown in trust and accountability within the institutions responsible for detainee welfare.

Stakeholder Responses and Institutional Accountability

The crisis has elicited responses from various stakeholders, each highlighting different aspects of the institutional failures related to SDG 16.

1. Civil Society and Community Action: In response to the crisis, Democratic leaders convened an emergency town hall to demand reform and accountability. Civil rights and environmental groups have filed lawsuits, utilizing legal mechanisms to challenge the state-run facility’s operations and demand justice for detainees.
2. Political Reaction: The political response has been divided. While some leaders demand immediate reform to address the “irreparable harm” caused by the conditions, others, such as Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott, have expressed support for the administration’s broader immigration policies, stating only that matters should be handled humanely.
3. Family Impact: The family of detainee Pedro Hernández has expressed terror for his health and fears he could be deported or die in custody, illustrating the profound human cost when institutions fail to protect health and uphold justice.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the hunger strike at the South Florida immigration detention center touches upon several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to basic human needs, health, equality, and justice. The primary SDGs connected to the issues are:

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – The core protest is a hunger strike, and detainees claim they are “not getting food,” directly linking to the goal of ending hunger and ensuring access to food.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – The article highlights “inhumane and dangerous living conditions,” a lack of “medical care,” and the hospitalization of a detainee, all of which are central to ensuring healthy lives and well-being.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation – The mention of detainees not receiving proper “hygiene” connects to the goal of ensuring access to sanitation and hygiene.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The issue involves the treatment of a vulnerable group (immigrant detainees), pointing to inequalities based on origin and migratory status. The detention of Pedro Hernández during a “routine check-in” highlights policies that disproportionately affect this group.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – This is a central theme, as the article discusses the denial of “access to legal counsel,” the need for “reform and accountability” of a state-run institution, and the overall fight for justice by the detainees and civil rights groups.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific problems described in the article, the following targets can be identified:

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Target 2.1: “By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.” The detainees are a vulnerable group, and the statement that “People are not getting food” directly relates to the failure to meet this target for those in the facility.

2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.8: “Achieve universal health coverage, including… access to quality essential health-care services.” The article’s claim that detainees are not getting “medical care” and that these conditions cause “irreparable harm” points to a direct failure to provide essential health services. The hospitalization of Pedro Hernández underscores the severe health risks.

3. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Target 6.2: “By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all… paying special attention to the needs of… those in vulnerable situations.” The complaint about a lack of “hygiene” for detainees, who are in a vulnerable situation, aligns with this target.

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.7: “Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.” The situation of Pedro Hernández, detained during a routine check-in and facing potential deportation, exemplifies a migration policy that is not safe or well-managed for the individual involved.

5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.1: “Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.” The wife’s fear that her husband “could die in custody” and the description of “dangerous living conditions” that cause “irreparable harm” relate to the prevention of violence and harm within state institutions.
   • Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law… and ensure equal access to justice for all.” The allegation from civil rights groups that “detainees haven’t been allowed access to legal counsel” is a direct challenge to this target.
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The emergency town hall demanding “reform and accountability” for the state-run facility directly addresses the need for institutional accountability.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article implies several indicators that could be used to measure progress, even if it does not state official SDG indicator codes or quantitative data:

1. For SDG 2 (Target 2.1):

   • Implied Indicator: Adequacy and provision of food in detention centers. The protest itself, with detainees refusing “another plate of food,” serves as a qualitative indicator of food insecurity or the poor quality of food provided.

2. For SDG 3 (Target 3.8):

   • Implied Indicator: Access to and quality of medical care for detainees. The specific mention of a lack of “medical care” and the hospitalization of a detainee are direct, albeit anecdotal, indicators of a failure in healthcare provision. The number of hospitalizations or medical grievances filed could be a quantitative measure.

3. For SDG 6 (Target 6.2):

   • Implied Indicator: Availability of basic hygiene facilities and supplies. The general complaint about a lack of “hygiene” implies that an assessment of sanitation services would be a relevant measure.

4. For SDG 10 (Target 10.7):

   • Implied Indicator: Number of migrants detained or deported under current policies. The case of Pedro Hernández being “detained in July during a routine check-in” serves as an example that could be quantified to measure the impact of immigration policies.

5. For SDG 16 (Targets 16.1, 16.3, 16.6):

   • Implied Indicator for Target 16.1: Number of deaths or incidents of serious harm in custody. The wife’s fear of her husband’s death is a proxy for the perceived risk of harm within the facility.
   • Implied Indicator for Target 16.3: Proportion of detainees with access to legal representation. The specific allegation that detainees “haven’t been allowed access to legal counsel” is a direct, measurable indicator.
   • Implied Indicator for Target 16.6: Mechanisms for institutional accountability. The filing of lawsuits by civil rights groups and the holding of a town hall demanding “reform and accountability” are indicators of a push for transparency and oversight where it is perceived to be lacking.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nbcnews.com