After Backlash, Pentagon Scraps Proposal for Immigrant Detention Camp Outside San Francisco

Maybe holding 47,000 people at a military Superfund site wasn’t such a great idea.

The Concord Naval Weapons Station land identified by the Navy as a site for a potential detention camp.Madison Pauly/Mother Jones

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

President Donald Trump’ family separation policy may be over for now, but his administration is still making plans to keep immigrant families crossing the border under lock and key—on military land if they have to. On Wednesday, Department of Defense officials announced that they have been asked by the Department of Homeland Security to get ready to hold up to 12,000 people in military facilities or temporary camps on Pentagon property, preferably in Arizona, California, New Mexico, or Texas. Two thousand migrant parents and children could be transferred to the first site, which has yet to be identified, by mid-August.

Federal officials from the Department of Health and Human Services were already evaluating Air Force and Army bases in Texas and Arkansas as potential locations to hold migrant children, including those who arrived at the border unaccompanied and those who had been separated from their families. Meanwhile, Navy officials were identifying sites that could be used hold DHS detainees, according to a leaked draft memoreported by Time. The memo identified several possible locations for migrant detention centers, including abandoned airfields in Alabama, which could hold up to 25,000 people in “temporary and austere” tents, as well as Camp Pendleton near San Diego and the Concord Naval Weapons Station near San Francisco, each of which was slated to hold up to 47,000 people.

It is not clear how much vetting any of these sites received. On Thursday, the Navy confirmed that it is no longer considering the Concord location, a 5,028-acre swath of rolling hills dotted with abandoned bunkers about 30 miles northeast of San Francisco. The inactive portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station had been used to store ammunition and heavy explosives for decades before it was closed in 2007. Parts of the area are contaminated with chemicals like arsenic, lead, and mercury as well as unexploded ordnance, and it has remained a Superfund site while undergoing a major environmental cleanup. What’s more, the portion of the base that the Navy identified as a possible encampment location has “no useful infrastructure” for water, sewage, or electricity, according to a letter from Concord Mayor Edi Birsan to the secretary of the Navy.

The leaked Navy proposal quickly sparked a backlash in Concord. Rep. Mark Desaulnier (D-Calif.) called the plans “absolute madness.” Residents packed two city council meetings, urging local politicians to do everything in their power to stop a potential detention site in their backyard. Several compared the proposal to Japanese-American internment or German concentration camps. Outside the meeting, a troupe of Mexican Aztec dancers used drums and smoke to send prayers to President Trump “so that he knows we are human,” in the words of Concord resident Alejandra Macias.

At a small protest outside one of the meetings, a veteran named Steven Nall recalled growing up around the weapons station, where his father worked as a Navy cryptographer. “I’ve been looking at all these empty bunkers, all the empty fields, for decades, wondering, ‘When are they going to do something about this?'” When he learned of the plans to use the site for a detention camp, Nall says he was “appalled.”

“This is not what I served to protect,” said Nall, dressed in his old Air Force uniform. “This is not what my dad served 20 years for, either.”

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate