A Utah state senator has sparked debate with a suggestion to outsource the housing of prisoners to El Salvador, aiming to reduce costs. While initially floated as a serious idea, Senator Dan McCay later clarified that it was more of a theoretical question rather than an actionable policy. This proposal involves sending inmates to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a maximum-security facility in El Salvador known for its severe conditions. Despite the potential cost savings, legal experts warn such measures could violate constitutional rights and raise significant ethical concerns. The discussion also highlights existing U.S. laws, like the First Step Act, which limit where federal prisoners can be housed.

In recent weeks, the conversation surrounding prisoner housing has taken an unusual turn. A post by Republican state Senator Dan McCay on social media suggested Utah might save money by contracting with El Salvador to house certain prisoners. According to his calculations, maintaining a federal prisoner in the U.S. costs approximately $80,000 annually, whereas El Salvador offers similar services for just $20,000 per year. However, this plan raises eyebrows due to the extreme conditions at CECOT, where inmates face isolation without access to visitors or educational programs. Furthermore, the legality of detaining American citizens abroad remains questionable under current constitutional frameworks.

McCay’s comments drew immediate reactions from colleagues and constitutional scholars alike. Rep. Trevor Lee expressed initial support for the idea, but deeper scrutiny revealed numerous obstacles. For instance, Ilya Somin, a law professor specializing in constitutional matters, pointed out that Americans possess fundamental rights ensuring their presence within the country unless specific exceptions apply. Additionally, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, making confinement in harsh foreign prisons potentially unconstitutional. Another complicating factor is the First Step Act, enacted during the Trump administration, which mandates placing federal prisoners near their primary residences whenever feasible—El Salvador clearly does not meet this criterion.

Beyond these legal hurdles, practical considerations further challenge the feasibility of outsourcing prisoner housing. Glen Mills, a spokesperson for Utah’s Department of Corrections, confirmed that while interstate agreements occasionally occur for high-profile cases, no precedent exists for international arrangements. Moreover, transferring custody across borders would necessitate cooperation from neighboring nations, adding layers of complexity. Although some southwestern parts of Utah lie within 500 miles of the Mexican border, logistical issues persist regarding proximity and jurisdictional consent.

Ultimately, despite the apparent financial appeal of outsourcing prisoner housing, both legal and ethical barriers render this approach improbable. Experts emphasize the importance of safeguarding constitutional protections against arbitrary detention practices. They caution against delegating control over U.S. citizens to foreign governments, citing risks of unaccountability and prolonged detention beyond prescribed terms. As discussions continue, lawmakers must weigh innovative cost-saving strategies against preserving fundamental rights and upholding justice system integrity.