CAMP ATTERBURY — A representative from the Indiana National Guard and Camp Atterbury provided details and answered questions about the military facility becoming a temporary holding facility for immigrant detainees.
Camp Atterbury has been formally selected as a potential site for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to temporarily hold individuals with immigration-related violations. The camp was preliminarily certified as a site that could house immigrant detainees, alongside Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, according to a July 15 letter written to Congress members.
At the Prince’s Lakes Town Council meeting on Monday, dozens of community members filled into town hall to listen to Command Sgt. Maj. Josh Butler from the Indiana National Guard give more information about future plans for the possible facility and ask questions.
The U.S. Department of Defense and Homeland Security, or DHS, are still analyzing and in the planning phase. If they choose to come, Camp Atterbury will only act as the property manager, and the Indiana National Guard will not work at or perform law enforcement activities for the holding facility, Butler said.
Camp Atterbury was selected by the Department of Defense because of its infrastructure and facilities, he said.
“It contains the required facilities and support infrastructure to allow for multiple concurrent operations,” Butler said. “With nearly 35,000 acres, Camp Atterbury can support the holding facility without interfering with scheduled training or impacts to operations.”
Community members had several questions for Butler, some of which he couldn’t answer since the project is still in “the infancy stage” and Camp Atterbury isn’t in charge of the facility’s operations.
Attendee Josh Uhl asked where the facility would be located on the property and whether it would have enough facilities and infrastructure.
The facility would be off-site and built by DHS in its own area, Butler said. Since nothing has been solidified yet, he said he couldn’t give information on facilities or infrastructure.
“It will be their prerogative to make sure that all utilities are there and paid for, etc., whether that’s tying into local utilities or our utilities at Camp Atterbury,” he said.
Attendees also wanted to make sure the detainees would be treated humanly and contained securely, and questioned whether Camp Atterbury would be establishing a perimeter or if it had the power to make mandates for the facility as the lessee of the property.
Butler said he couldn’t speak to the facility’s operations and Camp Atterbury won’t be responsible for its security. While Camp Atterbury already has an established perimeter, DHS would be responsible for establishing and securing its own perimeter internal to Camp Atterbury, he said.
As for making mandates, there would be agreements but they aren’t at that stage of the process yet since DHS hasn’t contracted Camp Atterbury yet, Butler said.
Since the military serves an oath to the Constitution and not the president, attendee and candidate for Indiana House District 47 Michael Potter asked whether there have been any internal conversations at Camp Atterbury on refusing leasing since Potter believes this isn’t consistent with the Constitution.
Butler said they haven’t had conversations and he couldn’t speak to that because it would be speculative.
“We take our directions, obviously, from the Department of Defense, Department of the Army and the Indiana National Guard, as well as the governor’s office,” he said.
Uhl then questioned if there would be any kind of push back to make sure things are being done the right way. For example, in his history as a correctional officer at Camp Atterbury’s prison, he understood it wasn’t his job to punish people and he needed to make sure their needs were met since confinement itself was the punishment, he said.
He brought up how Camp Atterbury has “the proud tradition” of doing the right thing, like the Prisoner of War chapel. It was a “testament that we’ve always as Hoosiers tried to do what is right, morally and ethically,” Uhl said.
“We also need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to make sure that the basic human needs are met,” Uhl said, “That they have fresh water, that they have the sewage in place, and we don’t have a bunch of diseases floating around like they had down in Florida … I take a lot of pride in my service in Camp Atterbury and I’d hate for that to be tarnished by something like this.”
Butler responded that they too “are proud of our Hoosier heritage and the lineage of Camp Atterbury and what it represents.”
Council member Kevin Harrison asked if a representative from DHS or ICE would come and answer questions from the community once a final plan is formulated. Butler believes this is the case and said ICE was present at a previous community meeting they had.
Council member Charlie Bourne pointed out that Camp Atterbury isn’t in control of everything with the collaboration.
“Camp Atterbury doesn’t have a say in this,” Bourne said. “They’re controlled by the government and by the state, so we can’t say anything bad about them. They’re doing what they are directed to do.”
Community members can reach out to the Indiana National Guard Public Affairs Office at ng.in.inarng.list.pao@army.mil or the town council with other questions. If Camp Atterbury is chosen, the Indiana National Guard plans to inform the public with more information, Butler said.