Source: http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2012/12/access-to-counsel-and-political.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:34:52+00:00

Document:
Now, with the center nearing completion on a 30-acre fenced enclosure hardly three miles from City Hall, Oakdale's rather offbeat crusade would seem a sure thing - except for some meddling New York lawyers.
Helton, careful to add that “while I'm sure that those five lawyers will do what they can,” said they would be too few to handle the hundreds of political asylum cases the detention center is likely to generate.
“There is a terrible tragedy in the offing," Helton said, arguing that if asylum cases are sent to Oakdale, the migrants will be processed and deported without a chance to adequately argue claims that they face political persecution back home.
Very interesting and dispiriting. Here's a thought: In Al Maqaleh v. Gates, the DC Circuit, picking up on a suggestion by the majority in Boumediene v. Bush, says that if the government deliberately chose a detention site for the purpose of defeating habeas jurisdiction, that would count in favor of finding jurisdiction. The underlying legal questions are different, but I wonder whether one could make an argument that there is a general principle that says that the government cannot profit from its own wrong. Of course, here, as in Al Maqaleh, proving that the government chose the site for nefarious purposes would be challenging.
For a period of time in the late 1990s, there actually was a very crude variant on what you suggest taking place. After the 1996 immigration laws were enacted, but before INS v. St. Cyr was decided in 2001, it was unclear which court had jurisdiction to review final removal orders, District Courts on habeas corpus or Courts of Appeals on petitions for review. During that period, several district judges in New York (I recall Judge Weinstein in Mojica v. Reno and Judge Chin in Yesil v. Reno but there may have been others) not only concluded that habeas jurisdiction over removal orders still existed, but they could exercise jurisdiction over removal orders that were issued in Louisiana and other far-flung places when the noncitizens were New York residents -- concluding that the New York long arm statute permitted them to exercise personal jurisdiction over the noncitizen's custodian, whether in Louisiana or in Washington DC at DOJ or INS headquarters, because they had "done business" in New York or something like that. There wasn't any conclusion that the government had rendered those noncitizens for nefarious purposes, but I always got the sense when reading those cases that the district judges were troubled by the practice of transferring individuals to these remote locations.
All of that has now likely been superseded altogether by the combination of the Supreme Court's decision in Rumsfeld v. Padilla and the REAL ID Act's jurisdiction provisions, but I always found the political and social geography of habeas jurisdiction to be a particularly interesting dimension of the story of the litigation leading up to INS v. St. Cyr.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.