By Melanie Gower, Georgina Sturge 

The Home Secretary has a duty to make a deportation order in respect of nonBritish or Irish citizens who have been convicted of an offence in the UK and sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment, unless certain exceptions apply. He also has discretionary powers to deport non-British citizens if he considers it to be “conducive to the public good”. Deportation of foreign national offenders is a longstanding government priority. The Home Office considers for deportation all foreign nationals convicted of a crime in the UK and given a prison sentence. Foreign national offenders can be removed from the country before the end of their prison sentence by way of a prisoner transfer agreement, or through the Early Removal Scheme or Tariff-Expired Removal Scheme. They can receive money to help them to resettle in their home country through the Facilitated Return Scheme. As of the end of June 2023, there were at least 10,321 foreign nationals in prison in England and Wales, out of a total prison population of 85,851. Over half of foreign prisoners were European and, overall, the most common nationalities were Albanian, Polish, Romanian, Irish, and Jamaican. There were 11,769 foreign national offenders subject to deportation action living in the community, as of 30 September 2022.

A report of an inspection by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration published in June 2023 was critical of the Home Office’s handling of foreign national offender cases. It found that the Early Removal Scheme and the Facilitated Return Scheme were not being administered effectively. The Government says it has made good progress removing foreign national offenders from prisons and the community, pointing to a 19% increase in overall foreign national offender returns in the 12-month period to September 2023 (3,577 people). Up until that point, the number of foreign national offenders returned on an annual basis had been falling since 2016, when 6,437 individuals were returned. 

London: UK Parliament, The House of Commons Library , 2024. 11p

By Cecilia Esterline  

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 is the policy playbook for a second Trump administration, and its impacts on immigration would be far more complex and destructive than previously reported. It isn’t simply a refresh of first-term ideas, dusted off and ready to be re-implemented. Rather, it reflects a meticulously orchestrated, comprehensive plan to drive immigration levels to unprecedented lows and increase the federal government’s power to the states’ detriment. These proposals circumvent Congress and the courts and are specifically engineered to dismantle the foundations of our immigration system. The most troubling proposals include plans to: • Block federal financial aid for up to two-thirds of all American college students if their state permits certain immigrant groups, including Dreamers with legal status, to access in-state tuition. • Terminate the legal status of 500,000 Dreamers by eliminating staff time for reviewing and processing renewal applications. • Use backlog numbers to trigger the automatic suspension of application intake for large categories of legal immigration. • Suspend updates to the annual eligible country lists for H-2A and H-2B temporary worker visas, thereby excluding most populations from filling critical gaps in the agricultural, construction, hospitality, and forestry sectors. • Bar U.S. citizens from qualifying for federal housing subsidies if they live with anyone who is not a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. • Force states to share driver’s licenses and taxpayer identification information with federal authorities or risk critical funding. These proposals, along with the others discussed herein, mark a significant divergence from traditional conservative immigration priorities like promoting merit-based immigration, fostering assimilation, and enhancing interior enforcement. Instead, they are designed to cripple the existing immigration system without regard for the extraordinarily harmful effects on the health and wealth of our country. They would weaken our nation’s prosperity and security and undermine the vitality of our workforce, with far-reaching consequences for future generations of Americans. 

New York: The Niskanen Center, 2024. 17p.

By United Nations Task Force on Children Deprived of Liberty

IMMIGRATION DETENTION, IS NEVER IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD AND CONSTITUTES A CHILD RIGHTS VIOLATION.

It is a form of violence that impacts a country’s capacity to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, especially targets 10.7 and 16.2.4,5 All children, regardless of their legal or migratory status or that of their families, have the right to be cared for and protected from violence, abuse and exploitation. At least 77 countries have laws and policies that allow children to be detained based on their legal or migratory status, and at least 330,000 children globally per year are deprived of their liberty based on their (or their parents’) legal or migratory status.6 Lack of accurate data means this is likely to be a significant under-estimate. While many countries have committed to end child immigration detention, the reality is that even in some countries where legislation does not support immigration detention, it continues to remain in use.7 In 2022, the United Nations Task Force on Children Deprived of Liberty8,9 under the leadership of the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children, made a joint pledge10 at the International Migration Review Forum (IMRF):

1. To conduct evidence-based advocacy and to mobilize all key stakeholders at all levels to scale up child rights-based protective solutions to end the detention of children in the context of migration.

2. To support Member States to harmonize their national legal frameworks with international human rights standards to explicitly prohibit detention of children based on their migration status or that of their families.

3. To involve and amplify the voices of migrant children in determining their best interests in all issues concerning children in legislation, policies, practices, including those related to integration, return and family reunification; as well as access to services, to justice and to remedies for violations of their rights.

4. To support data collection and the dissemination of promising practices on child rights-based protective solutions as alternative measures to end the detention of children in the context of migration.
   This advocacy brief provides an overview of promising practices and lessons learned to end child immigration detention and sets out a range of policy actions needed to scale up efforts to end this form of violence

New York: UNICEF, 2024. 15p.

By International Labour Organization (ILO), Walk Free, and International Organization for Migration (IOM) 2022

Modern slavery is a scourge that affects every region of the world. The latest Global Estimates indicate that 50 million people were living in modern slavery in 2021. Of these people, 28 million were in forced labour and 22 million were trapped in forced marriage. Unfortunately, the number of people in modern slavery has risen significantly in the last five years. In 2021, 10 million more people were in modern slavery compared to 2016 global estimates.

Geneva, SWIT: 2022. 144p.

By: Daniel E Martínez, Josiah Heyman, Jeremy Slack

Enforcement along the US-Mexico border has intensified significantly since the early 1990s. Social scientists have documented several consequences of border militarization, including increased border-crosser deaths, the killing of more than 110 people by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents over the past decade, and expanded ethno-racial profiling in southwestern communities by immigration authorities. Less attention has been paid to the pervasive and routine mistreatment migrants experience on a daily basis in CBP custody.

This paper traces major developments in border enforcement to three notable initiatives: the “prevention-through-deterrence” strategy; the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks; and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Consequence Delivery System, initiated in 2011. Despite the massive buildup in enforcement, CBP has operated with little transparency and accountability to the detriment of migrants. The paper provides an overview of the findings of nongovernmental organizations and social scientists regarding migrant mistreatment while in CBP custody. It then highlights important shifts in migration patterns over the past decade, as well as changes in border enforcement efforts during the Trump administration. It discusses how these transformations affect migrants’ everyday encounters with CBP officials.

New York: Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) and the Zolberg Institute on Migration and Mobility at the New School, 2020. 22p.

By Josiah Heyman, Jeremy Slack, Daniel E Martínez

United States Border Patrol agent Matthew Bowen allegedly hit an undocumented migrant with his truck in November 2017. In preparation for trial, federal prosecutors revealed that Bowen had a history of making derogatory statements about migrants in text messages, including calling them “disgusting subhuman shit unworthy of being kindling for a fire.” Mr. Bowen’s attorney tried to suppress the disclosure of his text messages, offering the damning argument that this attitude was “commonplace throughout the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector,” and “part of the agency’s culture”(Elfrink 2019). This case is not isolated, and our evidence raises serious concerns about a new proposal to have Border Patrol agents function as asylum officers.

The Trump administration has proposed that about 60 Border Patrol agents serve as asylum officers at the US-Mexico border (Taxin 2019). These agents would receive an unspecified period of training. 1 Their role would be to conduct initial interviews to determine whether asylum-seekers have a credible fear of returning to their countries or should be sent back. Those who pass such interviews can seek asylum before an immigration judge (ibid.). This process applies to people entering without authorization at the Mexican border, either presenting themselves without visas at ports of entry or entering without inspection. Despite it being legal to cross the border and request asylum, Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspectors are otherwise trained to target unauthorized border crossings as violations of the law. Border Patrol agents-

New York: Center for Migration Studies, 2019. 9p.

By Myrthe Wijnkoop, Stefan Kok, Anouk Pronk, Kathleen Bush -Joseph, Robin Neumann, Monika Sie and Dhian Ho

In this study, ‘In Search of Control’, current developments on access to asylum procedures and humanitarian protection in five destination countries have been studied through five separate country reports. In the synthesis report, results are compared and analysed, looking at which lessons can be learned from the North American context (Canada, United States), the European context (Denmark, the Netherlands) and the context in the Pacific (Australia). Our research shows that all these destination states are facing the same balancing act in search of control of migration. Therefore, they could and should learn from each other’s experiences in tackling this challenge. Firstly, there is a common humanitarian duty and responsibility to provide protection to those in need while demonstrating solidarity with regions facing heightened challenges due to refugee pressures and other geopolitical crises. Secondly, due to an aging population these states face increasing labour shortages, for which migration is needed. Thirdly, states want to remain in control over their borders and want to manage the influx and admission of migrants. Due to this balancing act, there are no ‘quick fixes’ in dealing with asylum migration. As these interrelated challenges are part of a global issue, innovative ways forward need to be based on solidarity and cooperation taking into account mutual interest; of those seeking protection, host countries in the region, transit countries becoming destination countries, communities within traditional destination countries, and of other destination states. To facilitate such cooperation, a clear legal framework with sound preconditions and safeguards is needed to ensure both effectiveness and the protection of the rights of refugees and migrants. This study identifies ten policy approaches that have been initiated or considered by these ‘destination states’ in order to either provide or limit access to asylum procedures and other forms of humanitarian protection. These approaches vary from interdiction to legal pathways, and from procedural measures to strategic communication, as will be briefly described below.

The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael, 2024. 360p.

By Josiah Heyman, Jeremy Slack, Daniel E Martínez

United States Border Patrol agent Matthew Bowen allegedly hit an undocumented migrant with his truck in November 2017. In preparation for trial, federal prosecutors revealed that Bowen had a history of making derogatory statements about migrants in text messages, including calling them “disgusting subhuman shit unworthy of being kindl for a fire.” Mr. Bowen’s attorney tried to suppress the disclosure of his text messages, offering the damning argument that this attitude was “commonplace throughout the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector,” and “part of the agency’s culture” (Elfrink 2019). This case is not isolated, and our evidence raises serious concerns about a new proposal to have Border Patrol agents function as asylum officers.

The Trump administration has proposed that about 60 Border Patrol agents serve as asylum officers at the US-Mexico border (Taxin 2019). These agents would receive an unspecified period of training.[1] Their role would be to conduct initial interviews to determine whether asylum-seekers have a credible fear of returning to their countries or should be sent back. Those who pass such interviews can seek asylum before an immigration judge (ibid.). This process applies to people entering without authorization at the Mexican border, either presenting themselves without visas at ports of entry or entering without inspection. Despite it being legal to cross the border and request asylum, Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspectors are otherwise trained to target unauthorized border crossings as violations of the law. Border Patrol agents-turned-asylum officers would mark a significant change to the Border Patrol’s role and in the asylum process overall.

As the Bowen case suggests, many Border Patrol Agents have negative attitudes toward immigrants and are unsuitable for the role of asylum officers. Clara Long from Human Rights Watch reports: “What we see over and over again is Border Patrol just has a culture of disbelieving asylum seekers. It’s really hard to imagine these agents being able to create the openness and trust and listening that’s really required for a credible fear interview” (Taxin 2019). In fact, this seems to be the very reason for the proposal. NBC reports that “Trump’s senior adviser Stephen Miller in particular has argued that CBP agents will be tougher on asylum-seekers and will pass fewer of them on the initial screening” (Ainsley, Lee, and Welker 2019). Yet the point of a credible fear interview is not to be negative or positive; the relevant regulations state that “the asylum officer…will conduct the interview in a non-adversarial manner… The purpose of the interview shall be to elicit all relevant and useful information bearing on whether the applicant has a credible fear of persecution or torture.”[2] The thinking is that the United States would rather afford people the benefit of the doubt and give them access to a full immigration hearing than to send them back home where they may be persecuted or killed. We have robust data that supports Long’s concern over Border Patrol agents being given this responsibility.

As part of the second wave of the Migrant Border Crossing Study (MBCS), we surveyed 1,109 recently deported Mexican migrants who crossed the border without documents, were apprehended, and deported to Mexico. From 2010-2012, we completed surveys in Tijuana and Mexicali, Baja California; Nogales, Sonora; Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas; and Mexico City. Our response rate was over 90 percent. The cities where we worked received 65 percent of all deportees along the US-Mexico border during the study period. Table 1 (below) provides basic descriptive findings from the MBCS. The typical MBCS respondent was male, between the ages of 18 and 34, from west-central (e.g., Jalisco or Michoacán) or southern/southeastern Mexico (e.g., Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca), with some prior migration experience, who most recently crossed through the Tucson, San Diego, or Laredo Border Patrol sectors.

New York; Center for Migration Studies, 2019. 8p.

By Sara De Vido

Violence against women is characterised by its universality, the multiplicity of its forms, and the intersectionality of diverse kinds of discrimination against women. Great emphasis in legal analysis has been placed on sex-based discrimination; however, in investigations of violence, one aspect has been overlooked: violence may severely affect women's health and access to reproductive health, and State health policies might be a cause of violence against women. Exploring the relationship between violence against women and women's rights to health and reproductive health, Sara De Vido theorises the new concept of violence against women's health in international law using the Hippocratic paradigm, enriching human rights-based approaches to women's autonomy and reflecting on the pervasiveness of patterns of discrimination. At the core of the book are two dimensions of violence: horizontal 'interpersonal', and vertical 'state policies'. Investigating these dimensions through decisions made by domestic, regional and international judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, De Vido reconceptualises States' obligations and eventually asks whether international law itself is the ultimate cause of violence against women's health.

Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press,  2020. 273p.

By American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona

This report documents the U.S. government’s inhumane practice of confiscating migrants’ most essential and prized personal belongings as they cross our southern border, including vital medications and medical devices, legal and identity documents, religious items, and items of practical or sentimental importance. Drawing on case examples and perspectives of border organizations that interface directly with migrants and work on this issue firsthand, we present an in-depth depiction of the severe harms caused by the U.S. Border Patrol’s confiscation of migrants’ personal belongings. We also offer concrete policy solutions to help ensure that Border Patrol treats migrants and their belongings with care and respect.

United States, ACLU. 2024, 46pg

By James F. Hollifield

How do liberal democracies balance the need for security with their commitment to protecting the human rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants? How can states coordinate migration governance while navigating asymmetries in interests and power? Decisions that address national security can seemingly come at the cost of protecting the rights of the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses. At the same time, liberal democracies must also consider the different calculi of unilateral action and multilateral cooperation.

This policy brief defines the liberal paradox in immigration and refugee policy and explains how the United States and other liberal democracies confront the dilemmas of forced displacement with respect to the competing interests of security, culture, economy, and rights. It provides recommendations on ways to improve international and regional cooperation and to address the challenges in the management of forced migration and human displacement.

Washington, DC:  Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars , 2024. 9p.

By Eleonora Celoria, and Marta Gionco

This briefing presents noteworthy practices at the national and European Union (EU) level related to safeguarding the rights of people in immigration detention and ultimately ending detention for migration purposes, by focusing on a wide range of actors spanning from civil society to national governments. It focuses on three advocacy objectives: 1. raising the visibility of detention and its harms, 2. ending the detention of children in the context of migration, and 3. implementing community-based solutions that can ultimately prevent and contribute to ending detention. The first chapter of the briefing explores civil society efforts aimed at unveiling what happens in immigration detention centres as well as the harmful impact of immigration detention itself. Ensuring that people in detention speak to the outside world and giving NGOs access to detention centres have been identified as the most important tools in this regard. It is also contended that further research, as well as litigation and advocacy, related to the right to communicate is needed. NGOs in the Netherlands and the UK have set up hotline systems to establish contact with individuals in detention, most of whom do not have access to their mobile phones. In Italy, strategic litigation has challenged the state’s denial to grant NGOs access to detention facilities. Both activities – phone communication and civil society visits - can be seen as part of a wider advocacy strategy to end immigrant detention, as exemplified by the work of civil society coalitions and organisations in Belgium, Italy and the United Kingdom, among others. The second chapter focuses on immigration detention of children, a practice which is never in the child’s best interests and should always be forbidden. While EU law still allows for immigration detention of children, there have been developments at the political and legislative levels in Germany, Belgium, France and Greece aiming at restricting the situations in which children could be detained for immigration purposes. The cases of Ireland, Italy and Spain are also explored, as these states do not generally detain children (whether they are unaccompanied or with their families). Overall, to comply with international standards and to put an end to child detention in the migration context, further efforts are needed at both the EU and national levels. The final chapter focuses on community-based solutions to prevent or end immigration detention. This section focuses in particular on the advantages of providing support through case management, which is a structured social work approach which empowers individuals to work towards case resolution (i.e., any temporary or permanent migration outcome, such as a visa, regularization scheme, re-migration or voluntary return). This section explores case studies from Belgium, Bulgaria, Poland, the UK and Italy, where case management projects are run by civil society originations, in cooperation with local (Belgium) or national (Bulgaria, Poland, UK) governments. Although each national experience is unique, the independent evaluation of these projects showed that they have some features in common: high levels of compliance of the people involved with the project, the limited numbers of migrants who have access to case management in comparison to the number of undocumented migrants, and the fact that these projects need to be accompanied by a general policy shift towards the implementation of non-coercive solutions in migration management. To conclude, this briefing analyses the practices of two countries, Ecuador and Uruguay, which are among the few states in the world that never applied or no longer resort to immigration detention.

Brussels, Belgium : PICUM – Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, 2024. 28p.

By Yvonne Giesing

We study the effects of technological change on immigration flows as well as the labor market outcomes of migrants versus natives. We analyse and compare the effects of two different automation technologies: Industrial robots and artificial intelligence. We exploit data provided by the Industrial Federation of Robotics as well as online job vacancy data on Germany, a highly automated economy and the main destination for migrants in Europe. We apply an instrumental variable strategy and identify how robots decrease the wage of migrants across all skill groups, while neither having a significant impact on the native population nor immigration flows. In the case of AI, we determine an increase in the wage gap as well as the unemployment gap of migrant and native populations. This applies to the low-, medium- and high-skilled and is indicative of migrants facing displacement effects, while natives might benefit from productivity and complementarity effects. In addition, AI leads to a significant inflow of immigrants. Policymakers should devote special attention to the migration population when designing mitigation policies in response to technological change to avoid further increases in inequality between migrants and natives.

Center for Economic Studies and ifo Institute (CESifo), Munich, 2023. 50p.

By I. Kulu-Glasgow M. van der Meer J.M.D. Schans M.P.C. Scheepmaker

Unaccompanied minors (UM) coming to Europe form an especially vulnerable group of migrant children, traveling without their parents or other adults exercising authority over them. In many European countries, asking for international protection is the main way for them to receive accommodation and a residence permit. However, minors coming from so-called safe countries, where in general there is no (fear of) persecution (e.g. Morocco, and in the Netherlands until June 2021 Algeria) have little or no chance of receiving a residence permit. Some of these mostly North African youngsters travel from one European country to another, in search of opportunities to work and earn money. According to Dutch supervisors (legal guardians and mentors in the accommodation centres), this group of nomadic minors often face multiple problems, such as drug addiction and mental health problems. This is also the group that sometimes causes incidents at or outside the accommodation centres or is involved in criminal activities (see also Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid, 2021). Studies in the Netherlands show that many of these youngsters go off the radar either before or during the asylum procedure and it is suspected that they stay in the Netherlands or move on to different European countries. In general, knowledge about this group is both limited and fragmented. The aim of this study was to learn more about the background of this group of minors, and gain knowledge about the experiences of other European countries with this specific group of minors.

The Hague: WODC, 2023. 146p.

By Robert Warren.

This report describes estimates of the undocumented population residing in the United States in 2022 compiled by CMS. The estimates are based on data collected in the American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the US Census Bureau.

The report finds that the undocumented population grew from 10.3 million in 2021 to 10.9 million in 2022, an increase of 650,000. The increase reverses more than a decade of gradual decline. The undocumented populations from 10 countries increased by a total of 525,000. The report explains why undocumented population growth is much less than the number of apprehensions by the Department of Homeland Security. Finally, the Appendix provides a detailed description of the CMS methodology.

The report includes the following topline findings:

• After remaining at or near zero growth from 2010 to 2021, the US undocumented population increased by 650,000 in 2022.

• The largest population gains in 2022 were for Central America (205,000), South America (200,000), and Asia (140,000).

• From 2015 to 2022, the undocumented population from Mexico declined by 1.3 million; in the same period, the combined population from Central and South America increased by 1.2 million.

The report describes changes in the US undocumented population by country of origin and state of residence since 2018 with special emphasis on changes from 2021 to 2022. The rapid increase in annual apprehensions and expulsions of migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border that began in 2019 has dominated media attention on migration for the past four years. That, in turn, has focused attention on the prospect of large annual increases in the undocumented population. Unfortunately, ACS data needed to monitor changes in the population are not available until about a year after the ACS survey is completed. The unique CMS methodology made it possible to derive these estimates less than two months after the release of 2022 ACS data.

By: Priyanka Bhatt, Katie Quigley, Azadeh Shahshahani, Gina Starfield, Ayano Kitano

Immigrants detained at the Irwin County Detention Center (ICDC) in Georgia have, for years, suffered egregious medical abuse, including invasive and medically unnecessary gynecological procedures without consent. Since Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contracted with ICDC in 2011, advocates have consistently raised concerns about the treatment of immigrants at the facility, including the lack of adequate medical and mental health care. Yet, months after that announcement, immigrants were still being detained in inhumane conditions at ICDC, until the last ones were transferred to other facilities in early September 2021. This report highlights the stories of women who suffered lasting trauma and debilitating physical and psychological effects of the medical abuse they endured while detained at ICDC. The abuses they suffered were first brought to light in September 2020, when Project South, together with Georgia Detention Watch, the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, and the South Georgia Immigrant Support Network, filed a whistleblower complaint with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ICE, and ICDC detailing the gross disregard for the health and medical well-being of immigrants detained at ICDC. The complaint, submitted on behalf of immigrants held at ICDC and whistleblower Dawn Wooten, a licensed practical nurse at ICDC, publicized multiple accounts of immigrant women subjected to non-consensual, medically unnecessary, or invasive gynecological procedures while in detention. Many women detained at ICDC did not understand the invasive medical procedures they were subjected to and, as a result, suffered not only lasting trauma but also debilitating effects of the procedures that they were not informed about. The complaint prompted more than 170 members of Congress to demand an investigation by DHS, which is ongoing. In October 2020, an independent team of medical experts, including board-certified obstetricians, reviewed the medical records of multiple women at ICDC and found a significant pattern of incorrect diagnoses and failure to secure informed consent for medical procedures.8 These abuses occurred despite the fact that the doctor who perpetrated them, Dr. Mahendra Amin, had already been investigated and prosecuted by the Department of Justice for similar abusive behavior, specifically for performing unnecessary medical procedures in violation of the False Claims Act. After these women and many others came forward, DHS and ICE retaliated by deporting and threatening to deport those who spoke out. These actions violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to petition the government and participate in federal investigations. By detaining these women for months on end during a global pandemic, DHS, ICE, and ICDC also failed to protect their health and safety, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations. The non-consensual treatment of these women also violates fundamental human rights, including the right to informed consent and bodily autonomy, which may not be violated under any circumstances. The United States must be held accountable for failing to uphold its obligations under both domestic and international law.

Atlanta: Project South, 2021. 37p.

By Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

The United States maintains the world’s largest immigration detention system, detaining tens of thousands of people in a network of facilities, including those managed by private prison corporations, county jails, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). At the time of writing, ICE is detaining over 35,000 people, including long-term residents of the United States, people seeking asylum, and survivors of trafficking or torture. Instead of finding refuge, these people are held in ICE custody for extended periods, enduring inhuman conditions such as solitary confinement (dubbed “segregation” by ICE), where they are isolated in small cells with minimal contact with others for days, weeks, or even years. In many instances, such conditions would meet the definition of torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under international human rights law. Solitary confinement causes a range of adverse health effects, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), self-harm, and suicide risks. Prolonged confinement can lead to lasting brain damage, hallucinations, confusion, disrupted sleep, and reduced cognitive function. These effects persist beyond the confinement period, often resulting in enduring psychological and physical disabilities, especially for people with preexisting medical and mental health conditions or other vulnerabilities. In recognition of this well-documented harm, ICE issued a directive in 2013 to limit the use of solitary confinement in its facilities, especially for people with vulnerabilities. A 2015 memorandum further protected transgender people, emphasizing solitary confinement as a last resort. In 2022, ICE reinforced reporting requirements for people with mental health conditions in solitary confinement, highlighting the need for strict oversight. Despite these directives, however, government audits and whistleblowers alike have repeatedly revealed stark failures in oversight. This report – a joint effort by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (HIRCP), and researchers at Harvard Medical School (HMS) – provides a detailed overview of how solitary confinement is being used by ICE across detention facilities in the United States, and its failure to adhere to its own policies, guidance, and directives. It is based on a comprehensive examination of data gathered from ICE and other agencies, including through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, first filed in 2017, and partly acquired after subsequent litigation. It is further enriched by interviews with 26 people who were formerly held in immigration facilities and experienced solitary confinement over the last 10 years. Executive Summary The study reveals that immigration detention facilities fail to comply with ICE guidelines and directives regarding solitary confinement. Despite significant documented issues, including whistleblower alarms and supposed monitoring and oversight measures, there has been negligible progress. The report highlights a significant discrepancy between the 2020 campaign promise of U.S. President Joseph Biden to end solitary confinement and the ongoing practices observed in ICE detention. Over the last decade, the use of solitary confinement has persisted, and worse, the recent trend under the current administration reflects an increase in frequency and duration. Data from solitary confinement use in 2023 – though likely an underestimation as this report explains – demonstrates a marked increase in the instances of solitary confinement. This report exposes a continuing trend of ICE using solitary confinement for punitive purposes rather than as a last resort – in violation of its own directives. Many of the people interviewed were placed in solitary confinement for minor disciplinary infractions or as a form of retaliation for participating in hunger strikes or for submitting complaints. Many reported inadequate access to medical care, including mental health care, during their solitary confinement, which they said led to the exacerbation of existing conditions or the development of new ones, including symptoms consistent with depression, anxiety, and PTSD. The conditions in solitary confinement were described as dehumanizing, with people experiencing harsh living conditions, limited access to communication and recreation, and verbal abuse or harassment from facility staff. etc.....

New York: Physicians for Human Rights, 2024.  50p.

By Brianna da Silva Bhatia, et al.

On December 23, 2020, Bella Quinto-Collins called 911, seeking help for her 30- year-old brother, Angelo Quinto, who was agitated and exhibiting signs of a mental health crisis at their home in Antioch, California. When two police officers arrived, they pulled Quinto from his mother’s arms onto the floor. At least twice, Quinto’s mother, Cassandra Quinto-Collins, heard him say to the officers, “Please don’t kill me.” Bella and Cassandra then watched in disbelief and horror as the two officers knelt on Quinto’s back for five minutes until he stopped breathing. Three days later, Quinto died in the hospital. It was not until August 2021 that the family learned the official determination of cause of death: a forensic pathologist testified during a coroner’s inquest that Quinto died from “excited delirium syndrome.” Angelo Quinto, a Filipino-American Navy veteran, is one of many people, disproportionately people of color, whose deaths at the hands of police have been attributed to “excited delirium” rather than to the conduct of law enforcement officers. In recent years, others have included Manuel Ellis, Zachary Bear Heels, Elijah McClain, Natasha McKenna, and Daniel Prude. “Excited delirium” even emerged as a defense for the officers who killed George Floyd in 2020. An Austin-American Statesman investigation into each non-shooting death of a person in police custody in Texas from 2005 to 2017 found that more than one in six of these deaths (of 289 total) were attributed to “excited delirium.” A January 2020 Florida Today report found that of 85 deaths attributed to “excited delirium” by Florida medical examiners since 2010, at least 62 percent involved the use of force by law enforcement.6 A Berkeley professor of law and bioethics  conducted a search of these two news databases and three others from 2010 to 2020 and found that of 166 reported deaths in police custody from possible “excited delirium,” Black people made up 43.3 percent and Black and Latinx people together made up at least 56 percent.7 When did the term “excited delirium” evolve to describe a distinct type of “delirium?" How did the corresponding term “excited delirium syndrome” become a go-to diagnosis for medical examiners and coroners to use in explaining deaths in police custody? What is the evidence that it is indeed a valid diagnosis? This report traces the evolution of the term from when it appears to have first been coined in the 1980s to the present. Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) reconstructed the history of the term “excited delirium” through a review of the medical literature, news archives, and deposition transcripts of expert witnesses in wrongful death cases. We evaluated current views and applications of the term through interviews with 20 medical and legal experts on deaths in law enforcement custody. Additionally, we spoke to six experts on severe mental illness and substance use disorders to better understand the context in which the term most often arises. Finally, we interviewed members of two families who lost loved ones to police violence for a firsthand account of the harms of the term’s continued use. This report concludes that the term “excited delirium” cannot be disentangled from its racist and unscientific origins. Dr. Charles Wetli, who first coined the term with Dr. David Fishbain in case reports on cocaine intoxication in 1981 and 1985, soon after extended his theory to explain how more than 12 Black women in Miami, who were presumed sex workers, died after consuming small amounts of cocaine. “For some reason the male of the species becomes psychotic and the female of the species dies in relation to sex,” he postulated. As to why all the women dying were Black, he further speculated, without any scientific basis, “We might find out that cocaine in combination with a certain (blood) type (more common in blacks) is lethal.”  
New York: Physicians for Human Rights, 2022. 95p.

By Eleanor Hope Emery. et al.

Although protection for refugees is a longstanding U.S. legal commitment under federal and international law, immigration policy has become a deeply politicized topic in the United States in recent years. Domestic violence and violence by organized gangs represent a major cause of forced displacement for those arriving at the U.S. border. Yet these forms of persecution are viewed skeptically by some policymakers who favor restricting immigration in spite of U.S. legal obligations to ensure the right to seek asylum. Extensive data demonstrates that the increase in migration from Central America to the United States in the past decade has been triggered by physical and sexual violence, death threats, and other abuses by organized gangs, domestic abusers, and government authorities, resulting in high levels of physical and psychological trauma. The Trump administration dismissed these claims as “meritless” and asylum seekers as “fraudsters” who exploit the “loophole” of asylum, alleging that they are actually criminals. Former attorney general Jeff Sessions flouted decades of domestic and international legal precedent by issuing a blanket statement, in a single case, that domestic and gang violence survivors will generally not qualify for asylum. This decision had the immediate impact of increasing denials of Central American asylum claims, in line with the political g  

New York: Physicians for Human Rights, 2021. 54p.

by Kathryn Hampton et al

For the last two years, the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), or “Remain in Mexico” policy, have forced almost 70,000 people seeking asylum in the United States to wait in dangerous Mexican border towns while their cases pend – in violation of U.S. and international law, which prohibits returning asylum seekers to places where they fear that they may be persecuted. With the indefinite postponement of immigration hearings due to COVID-19, asylum seekers in MPP face ever-lengthening periods of stay in Mexico, where many have experienced violence, trauma, and human rights abuses.

Since the start of MPP, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) has responded to more than 100 requests by attorneys for pro bono forensic evaluations of asylum seekers enrolled in the program, most in support of asylum claims and a few in support of requests for MPP exemption due to health issues. To quantify the extent of reported health and human rights violations affecting asylum seekers in MPP, PHR partnered with the University of Southern California’s Keck Human Rights Clinic (KHRC) to review 95 deidentified affidavits based on forensic evaluations of asylum seekers from Central and South America ranging in age from 4 to 67 years. We found that at least 11 people belonged to categories that should have been exempt from MPP enrollment.  Although most affidavits focused on the harms migrants fled in their home countries, most documented compounding harms to the migrants after they were returned to Mexico under MPP, including physical violence, sexual violence, kidnapping, theft, extortion, threats, and harm to family members. The affidavits also reported unsanitary and unsafe living conditions, poor access to services, family separations, and poor treatment in U.S. immigration detention. Nearly all of those evaluated were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and many exhibited other debilitating psychological conditions or symptoms.

This study adds to the considerable evidence that it is not safe for migrants to remain in Mexico while their U.S. asylum cases are pending, and forcing them to do so violates U.S. and international law. The incoming Biden administration should immediately admit all people enrolled in MPP into community settings in the United States, rescind MPP, and initiate an investigation to determine appropriate redress for people harmed by this policy.

New York: Physicians for Human Rights, 

2021. 21p.