Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 53 (2021) Ghosts in America: Working Towards Building a Legal Framework for Stateless Individuals in the United States B) Indefinite Detention The second recommendation would be to indefinitely detain all stateless individuals in the United States who were not granted asylum status. This is one of the least desirable solutions for several reasons. First, indefinite detention is a violation of due process. 332 Courts have found that the Constitution prohibits pre-trial mandatory detention unless there is proof of danger or a flight risk. 333 Federal courts in New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, and California found that the same is true for immigration cases.334 Second, indefinite detention is prohibited by the Supreme Court’s rulings in Zadvydas v. Davis in 2001 and Clark v. Martinez in 2005.335 As a result of these cases, after six months of detention, the burden shifts to the United States government to prove that the removal of a noncitizen in deportation proceedings is possible in the reasonably foreseeable future. 336 This standard prevents stateless persons from becoming “lifers” – held indefinitely in detention facilities. 337 Third, keeping stateless individuals indefinitely in detention will be a wasteful financial endeavor. 338 Detaining individuals in immigration detention is costly to the taxpayer. 339 It costs the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) on average $58 a day per detainee and $500,000 per day cumulatively to detain aliens in state and local jails. 340 Detaining individuals indefinitely also carries social and economic costs. 341 Many of those detained are longtime residents of the United States with U.S. citizen family members who depend on them for economic and 332. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 679 (2001). 333. Analysis of Immigration Detention Policies, ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/other/analysis-immigration-detention-policies [https://perma.cc/EXN6-Z8G8]. 334. Id. 335. Corgan, supra note 18; Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (holding that non-U.S. citizens admitted to the U.S. but subsequently ordered removed cannot be detained beyond the 90-day removal period for any longer than “reasonably necessary” to effectuate their removal from the country); Clark v. Suarez Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (holding that Zadvydas was also applicable to inadmissible immigrants). 336. Corgan, supra note 18. 337. Id. 338. See Baluarte, supra note 20, at 366. 339. Analysis of Immigration Detention Policies, supra note 333. 340. Id. 341. See id. 393