On October 9, 2021, the Bangladesh Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to establish a common framework for humanitarian services for Rohingya refugees on Bhasanchar, an island 37 miles from the mainland in the Bay of Bengal. Bangladesh’s plan to relocate 100,000 Rohingya to Bhasanchar offers an opportunity to analyze the complex nature of refugee-hosting in the Global South, bringing into focus how a Global South host, rather than being a passive actor, can attempt a context-specific strategy to generate normative and financial support for its role in accommodating a displaced population. This research aims to make three main contributions. First, it seeks to situate the case of the Rohingya refugee population in Bangladesh within the literature on migration diplomacy and refugee rentierism. Second, it seeks to modify and expand on the refugee rentier state literature by demonstrating how a host country can pursue a path of ‘normative modelling,’ rather than blackmailing or backscratching for purely economic aims. It shows that states may seek to set new norms for refugee hosting for the purpose of gaining international recognition and accolades, in addition to economic support. As such, it finds the existing models of refugee rentierism constrained by its roots in realist IR theory, and suggests a constructivist correction, in which identity and norm setting are relevant to understanding the state’s policy choices. Third, in examining the use of ‘internal offshoring’ i.e. using one’s own territory for redistribution of a population (in this case from a congested refugee camp), it problematizes how Global North practices of extraterritorial ‘offshoring’ such as Australia’s use of the Nauru and Manus islands for immigration detention have served as the framework for understanding Bangladesh’s strategy. While the research outlines the grounds for valid concerns about Bhasanchar, an examination of the political economy of land use in Bangladesh offers a nuanced understanding of the island relocation plan. Such an analysis underscores how imposing the border externalization practices framework inaccurately casts Bangladesh as a case of ‘negative norm absorption’ of migrant deterrence practices, rather than capturing how char (island) living has long been a part of riverine Bangladesh’s sociocultural and economic practices and obfuscates the country’s attempt at norm modeling for refugee accommodation.

This paper aims to shed light on fragmented migration narratives as portrayed in Refugee Tales V (2024) which mainly focuses on the United Kingdom’s migratory policies. Besides depriving migrants, refugees and asylum seekers of their civil and human rights, these policies engender wasted lives for certain categories of human beings who are not allowed to stay in the United Kingdom. Ten years after the first walk of solidarity, the ethics of care, consideration and attention that start with the act of listening to stories of people who experience the reality of the British border institutions’ immigration detention are still relevant.

In Western countries, immigration detention centres function as sites of profound rights deprivation, where migrants are subjected to deplorable conditions and are socially, politically, and materially excluded. Despite being held for administrative, rather than criminal, reasons, detainees experience their disposability and abjection as ‘illegal immigrants’. Against this backdrop, hunger strikes in immigration detention centres have been expanding. Dominant political narratives often frame these protests as acts of ‘blackmail’ or as symptoms of mental illness, thereby obscuring their significance as legitimate forms of political resistance against oppression. Drawing on a border criminology justice framework, this article conceptualises migrant hunger strikes as a form of radical recognition (Barker, 2024), arguing that they embody a paradoxical form of nonviolent action through which detainees assert their political agency and demand fundamental respect for their humanity. The article situates hunger strikes within the broader context of detainees’ lived experiences and the enduring legacies of detention, arguing that they serve as powerful assertions of dignity in the face of dehumanisation. Ultimately, it contends that migrant hunger strikes can be conceived as meaningful acts of resistance through which detainees reclaim their humanity within the oppressive system of immigration detention.

Recent studies suggest rising suicide rates among people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The authors sought to characterize suicide deaths in ICE detention. The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of publicly available ICE detainee death reviews (DDRs). Each report was systematically reviewed for demographic and clinical information. The primary outcome was cause of death; secondary measures included symptoms, delays in care, and health care services provided. According to 69 DDRs, 12 (17%) individuals died by suicide, all of whom were men (mean age=38.6 years) who died by hanging. Compared with individuals who died of general medical causes, those who died by suicide were more likely to have had psychiatric symptoms, had documented behavioral concerns, and refused mental health care (p≤0.001). This analysis highlights major deficiencies in mental health care in ICE facilities, emphasizing the need for improved oversight, timely interventions, and accountability to prevent deaths in ICE custody.

OP 18: Mental Health 1, B304 (FCSH), September 4, 2025, 13:30 - 14:30AimsThe offshoring of migrant detention is not a new policy development, but it has recently come back into the forefront with the February 2025 decision by the United States to detain migrants in Cuba, Panama, and Costa Rica. Extensive evidence from around the world reveals the negative impacts of detention on migrants’ physical and psychological health. Externalizing migration detention only serves to multiply these effects. This paper aims to show that?offshore immigration detention is an inefficient, expensive, and dangerous policy that has dire consequences for the health of migrants.MethodsThis paper explores the existing academic and scientific literature surrounding the health impacts of immigration detention, focusing in particular on migrants in situations of protracted and externalized detention. It utilizes several case studies, including from Australia, Greece, Thailand, and the United States that underscore the specific health impacts of offshore detention on migrants in a variety of political contexts. Finally, the paper provides alternatives to offshore migration detention and recommendations for policymakers, healthcare providers, and legal advocates.ResultsThis paper reveals that offshore immigration detention negatively impacts migrants in a number of direct and indirect ways. First, and most stark: offshore detention is associated with a significant increased risk in PTSD and other mental illnesses. Second, protracted detention, as is often the case with offshore detention, is associated with worsening physical health. Lastly, offshore detention prevents or limits access to timely, adequate care from medical providers, multiplying the negative effects on health.ConclusionsOffshore migration detention is a policy that is gaining traction in migrant-receiving countries in the West. Not only is this an expensive and ineffective policy, but it has severe negative effects on the health of migrants. For this reason alone, the policy must not be allowed to proliferate.

The impact of immigration detention on children's mental health: systematic review: commentary, Liddell.

Immigration detention is the source of significant psychological risk for detainees, including high levels of trauma, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While worry increases worldwide, though, the quality and quantity of psychosocial interventions in detention centers are patchy. The present paper is an evidence-based overview of psychosocial interventions that can help migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees who are detained in immigration, closed migration centers, and custody and accommodation contexts. Based on theoretical work like Ecological Systems Theory, Cognitive-Behavioral Models of Stress and Adaptation, and Resilience Theory, the review specifies how such approaches guide mental health care plans among detainees. In synthesizing exemplary practices in psychosocial treatment, the study incorporates initial screening for mental illnesses, cognitive-behavioral therapies, trauma-informed services, techniques used to promote resilience, and culture-sensitive interventions. Evidence shows that multimodal interventions—combining individual, group, and community-based approaches—are most successful in alleviating psychological distress and facilitating adaptation among detainees. However, the implementation of such interventions is often hampered by systemic barriers, including limited access to mental health professionals, legal and policy constraints, and ethical issues of coercion and informed consent. The article also addresses ethical and policy considerations and emphasizes the need for rights-based approaches, alternatives to detention, and increasing access to mental health care. Longitudinal follow-up studies of detainees' mental health trajectories after release and comparative studies of community-based alternatives to detention and their impact on psychosocial well-being are suggested for future research. By affirming evidence-based, trauma-informed, and culturally sensitive psychosocial interventions, this study can contribute to constructing humane, ethical, and efficient policies for the mental well-being of detained migrants.

Immigration Detention: the Case for Contingent Abolitionism

To assess documented substance use indicators and the probable role of substance use disorders (SUDs) in deaths occurring in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody between April 2018 and May 2025. A retrospective cross-sectional review was conducted using all 69 publicly available ICE Detainee Death Reviews (DDRs) during the study period. Medically licensed reviewers analyzed each DDR for documented substance use indicators, clinical screening or diagnosis, referral, treatment, and emergency response. Additional variables included demographic information, psychiatric symptoms, and access to medical or mental health care. Among 27 deaths involving a probable substance use history or related medical/psychiatric conditions, none showed documentation of SUD diagnosis, referral, or evidence-based treatment. Nine individuals (33.3%) died from complications potentially related to untreated substance use, including opioid and alcohol withdrawal. Over half of these cases showed documented signs of delayed emergency response. Although DDRs frequently noted patient "refusal" of care (n=11), none documented formal assessments of decision-making capacity. Most individuals in the sample had resided in the United States for over 2 decades before ICE detention. Our findings reveal probable gaps in the documented identification and treatment of SUD among individuals who died in ICE custody. Standardized behavioral health protocols, timely emergency response, and greater transparency are needed to address substance-related risks in immigration detention settings.

Globally, the number of refugees and asylum seekers has reached unprecedented levels, prompting many host countries to adopt immigration detention as a strategy to deter unauthorised arrivals. While previous studies have largely used quantitative methods to examine the consequences of detention, this is the first qualitative systematic review synthesising evidence on the impact of immigration detention on the mental and physical health of adult and child asylum seekers and refugees (ASR) in middle- to high-income host countries. A systematic search of medical, allied health, and social science databases and grey literature was conducted between December 2021 and October 2024 (Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, APA PsycARTICLES, Social Policy and Practice, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Open Grey). Reference lists of included studies were also screened. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022328867). Study selection, critical appraisal, and data extraction were performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Of 2,512 records identified, 564 full texts were assessed, and 20 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 374 adults and 139 children with current or past detention experiences, with detention durations ranging from two weeks to 38 months. Thematic synthesis revealed five overarching themes: human rights violations within detention; systemic failures of healthcare provision and resultant vulnerability; adverse health impacts of detention; changes in self-concept, relationships, and worldview after release; and enduring negative consequences for mental and physical health. Findings highlight that immigration detention uniformly undermines the health and well-being of ASR, with effects persisting long after release. This review underscores the urgent need for health and human rights to be central considerations in migration policy and practice.

Globally, the number of refugees and asylum seekers has reached unprecedented levels, prompting many host countries to adopt immigration detention as a strategy to deter unauthorised arrivals. While previous studies have largely used quantitative methods to examine the consequences of detention, this is the first qualitative systematic review synthesising evidence on the impact of immigration detention on the mental and physical health of adult and child asylum seekers and refugees (ASR) in middle- to high-income host countries. A systematic search of medical, allied health, and social science databases and grey literature was conducted between December 2021 and October 2024 (Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, APA PsycARTICLES, Social Policy and Practice, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Open Grey). Reference lists of included studies were also screened. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022328867). Study selection, critical appraisal, and data extraction were performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Of 2,512 records identified, 564 full texts were assessed, and 20 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 374 adults and 139 children with current or past detention experiences, with detention durations ranging from two weeks to 38 months. Thematic synthesis revealed five overarching themes: human rights violations within detention; systemic failures of healthcare provision and resultant vulnerability; adverse health impacts of detention; changes in self-concept, relationships, and worldview after release; and enduring negative consequences for mental and physical health. Findings highlight that immigration detention uniformly undermines the health and well-being of ASR, with effects persisting long after release. This review underscores the urgent need for health and human rights to be central considerations in migration policy and practice.

Abstract Background Detention is one of the most powerful social determinants of mental illness: in Europe at least a third of people in prison present one or more symptoms related to psychiatric disorder. At the same time, migration can represent a strong psychological thorn, in particular for people who face traumatic and/or violent migratory experiences and who finally live in host countries in degraded, marginalizing and/or criminalizing contexts. So, for foreign people in prison, mental health problems take on the form of a double burden, which is amplified and correlated with the widespread abuse and misuse of psychotropic drug. Methods This specific double burden requires the analysis of evidence published in the scientific literature and, as far as possible, also the grey literature made up of reports and institutional documents and figures of guarantor of the rights of people in detention. Results From this analysis it will be possible to extrapolate data and evidence on the conditions and mental health outcomes of migrants in Italy in three specific contexts: 1) adult prisons; 2) juvenile prisons and 3) immigration detention centers for forced repatriations. Conclusions Due to the over-representation of migrant people in prison and to their criminalization (“crimmigration”), the Italian prison context is particularly vulnerable for them, with the urgent need for a public health focus on juvenile prisons, where overcrowding associated with forms of drugs addiction that are difficult to manage in the context of juvenile justice, are leading to increasingly significant psychopathological outcomes. Finally, immigration detention centers are under investigations and complaints due to the conditions of degradation, suffering, violence and abandonment in which people destined for forced repatriation live: in this context, mental health issues and psychotropic drugs abuse are not simply due to the pathogenicity of the places, but become a structural part of them.

The increasing migration of women, children, and transgender folks and the mobilizations against their detention have prompted immigration authorities to pivot and incorporate gender-responsive approaches to reframe the US immigration system as a humanitarian bureaucratic institution and not a site of neglect and death. This essay reviews three strategies that exemplify how immigration officials appropriated concerns to reclaim authority over the detention of transgender migrants at a time when their capacity was being called into question. These strategies include the hiring of an LGBTI public advocate for Enforcement and Removal Operations, the creation and issuance of transgender guidance and training, and the establishment of transgender pods. Drawing on a range of primary source materials, such as ICE employees’ public statements, training manuals, NGO reports, and newspaper accounts, this article shows how these strategies are part of a coordinated effort to pinkwash immigrant detention. Through this analysis, the author argues that pinkwashing was central to rehabilitating ICE's public image as caring and responsive and has been mobilized to expand detention. By doing so, the author shows the ways immigration enforcement is contributing to the growth of an emerging regime of carceral humanism.

Background/ObjectivesOphthalmic care for patients who are incarcerated or in immigration detention presents complex challenges for patients and providers. There remains a paucity of literature investigating ophthalmic care for these marginalised populations. We investigated the delivery of ophthalmic care in an academic health system to patients who were incarcerated or in immigration detention.Subjects/MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study and secondary analysis of electronic health record data for inpatient, outpatient, and surgical visits between 1 November 2018 and 30 September 2023 in an ophthalmology department at an academic medical centre in the United States for patients who were incarcerated or in immigration detention. Attendance at outpatient clinic visits and follow-up based on ophthalmic subspecialty, loss to follow-up, delays in follow-up, and rates of ancillary testing were analysed.Results1628 scheduled visits were extracted for 401 patients, of which 1084 were attended (2.7 ± 3.6 per patient) and 544 were cancelled or no-showed (1.4 ± 1.8 per patient). Patients attended 100 (68.5%) of cornea, 116 (64.4%) of glaucoma, 2 (28.6%) of neuro-ophthalmology, 139 (58.2%) oculoplastics, 9 (36.0%) of paediatrics/strabismus, and 109 (54.5%) of retina visits. Using a 2-week grace period for follow-up, 72 patients (40.9% with complete follow-up data) completed follow-up within 2 weeks. 229 patients (57.1%) were lost to follow-up at the end of the study period, which is consistent with data from previous reports on ophthalmic care at other centres for patients who were incarcerated.ConclusionsDelays in care and visit attrition were substantial for patients who were incarcerated or in immigration detention. More work is needed to quantify outcomes and address disparities in care for these marginalised communities.

ABSTRACT This article engages with Behrouz Boochani’s prison writing, especially his autobiographical novel No Friend but the Mountains and his poetic manifesto, “A Letter from Manus Island”. Boochani wrote these works while he was incarcerated in Australian immigration detention on Manus, a tropical island in an archipelago in the far north of Papua New Guinea. His writing is widely acclaimed for its meticulous description and analysis of the ongoing atrocities of the Australian immigration detention regime. I argue that his work should also be read as a sustained thinking of collective practices of freedom. The practices of freedom that Boochani articulates emerge in the generation of “profound relations” of feeling between the people, animals, plants, oceans and winds of Manus. These relations of feeling resist the system of control, coercion and violence that undergird Manus Prison. For Boochani, the system of control at the prison is a microcosm of what he calls Manus Prison Theory. His thinking of freedom is a thinking with the feelings and forces of Manus, and his writing is traced with the places that he wrote in.

United States (U.S.) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities have been criticized for medical mismanagement and lack of transparency of health care and outcomes. In this study we analyzed call logs from individuals detained in a southern Georgia ICE detention facility to better understand the specific medical challenges they faced. Thematic analysis of 254 call logs identified three primary themes: mismanagement of medical and psychiatric conditions; detention as the cause of mental health symptoms, and concerns related to facility operations and conditions. Reports described delays in healthcare delivery, hazardous facility conditions, and deterrence from seeking medical care due to fear of segregation. Our results contribute to growing literature highlighting medical mismanagement and substandard conditions in ICE facilities.

Upper-middle and high income countries employ immigration detention for asylum-seeking/refugee (ASR) children despite documented health risks. We sought to assess the physical and mental health impacts of detention on ASR children in these settings. A systematic review of 15 studies (N = 4,890 children) from 2,512 screened records was undertaken. Relevant databases were searched from 1808 to October 2024 for papers using the search terms 'unaccompanied/separated/children/minors/adolescents,' and 'war/trauma/asylum/refugee,' and 'mental illness/ PTSD/depression/ distress, depressive symptoms/ anxiety/physical health/ health/risk factors,' as well as 'detention/detain/imprison/incarcerate'. Joanna Briggs Institute tools assessed quality. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) data from three studies (n = 239) underwent random-effects meta-analysis as the primary measure of social-emotional and behavioural issues. Duration of detention ranged from 2 weeks to 36 months. Prevalence of PTSD ranged from 6.5% (brief detention < 30 days) to 100% (prolonged detention ≥ 12 months). MDD was reported in 44-95% of children, and suicidal ideation/self-harm in 25-57%. Developmental delays were observed in 75% of children detained ≥ 12 months. Anxiety disorders (45-50%) included separation anxiety and generalised anxiety. The mixed model meta-analysis revealed severe mental health burdens with detained children exhibiting total difficulties scores twice the normative population mean (16.63 vs. 7.1-8.4, 95% CI: 11.19-22.07) with elevated subscale scores for emotional symptoms (5.40 vs. 1.6-2.1, 95% CI: 3.79-7.01), conduct problems (2.93 vs. 1.3-1.6, 95% CI: 1.53-4.32), and peer problems (3.34 vs. 1.4-1.6, 95% CI: 2.17-4.51) (I² >75% for all mental health outcomes). Physical health impacts included malnutrition (24-56%), dental caries (21-54%), vitamin D deficiency (51%), and somatic complaints (e.g., headaches, enuresis). Systemic risk factors-detention duration, family separation, and cumulative trauma-exacerbated harm, with parental mental illness (54%) and dehumanising conditions (e.g., numeric identification) amplifying risks. Comparative data highlight resettled children's recovery trajectories when provided stability and community support. Most studies were cross-sectional, limiting the ability to assess causality. This review consolidates evidence that establishes a connection between immigration detention and the manifestation of mental disorders, categorising it as an instance of early-life adversity. All fifteen studies identified detrimental consequences, and a meta-analysis of three studies revealed significant emotional distress and behavioural issues. These findings underscore the urgent need for policy reforms to abolish prolonged detention, prioritise family unity, and implement trauma-informed care to mitigate irreversible health consequences for ASR children. Policymakers must recognise these impacts and refrain from detaining and separating children and families.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , registration number CRD42022328867.

Hundreds of alleged human rights abuses in US immigration detention centres, report finds.

US immigration detention centers threaten health and human rights.

Abstract This paper introduces “weaponized waiting,” a newly-identified type of administrative burden inflicted upon families visiting loved ones in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities. Based on 40 in-depth interviews with family members and three years of ethnographic fieldwork in three Southern California facilities, this study argues that waiting is deployed as a bureaucratic tool to harm families. The act of waiting, regulated by opaque rules—from protocols that organize transfers of detained people to dress codes that govern visitors’ apparel—emerges as a form of bureaucratic violence that is both punitive and disciplinary. The findings reveal that when visitation policies obligate relatives to wait for contact with each other, this amplifies damage to families already burdened by the threat of deportation. Further, waiting is weaponized at both macro and micro levels. At the macro level, facility policies signal hostility, while otherwise being unresponsive and unaccountable. At the micro level, waiting is extended at the discretion of individual bureaucrats whose choices frequently appear arbitrary in the eyes of visitors. Consequently, not only do visitors lose control over their time, the resulting separation from their detained loved ones produces feelings of powerlessness, anger, and despair.