Detention Is Not Just a Political Tool

Alexander Cardenas, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

Note: This article was written by a student of Dr. Meghan Cohen, in the class, Global Human Rights Advocacy. The Highlander is proud to serve as a platform for guest contributions and encourages collaboration between our community and our publication. 

In the United States, Immigrations and Customs Enforcements (ICE) detains tens of thousands of people while they wait for their immigration hearings. These facilities are described as non-punitive and defended as a necessity to ensure court appearances. Though ICE is constantly in the news headlines, detention is presented as the practical solution.

On the surface this is very reasonable; legal systems require strong structure, and appearing in court is the first step to that structure. Supporters of detention argue that without this system, people will hide and ignore court proceedings. However, research will tell you a vastly different story.

A review published in BMC Psychiatry found that “anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder were most commonly reported both during and following detention.” The same review concluded that “higher symptom scores were found in detained compared to non-detained refugees.” Basically, detention resulted in heightened negative mental health outcomes. 

Additionally, a 2024 Campbell review solidified this point, noting that “clinicians have expressed concerns over the mental health impact of detention on asylum seekers, a population already burdened with trauma”  Considering many immigrants are asylum seekers intending to flee violence, instability and various violations of human rights, detention just simply adds to the traumatic life they have lived.

Again, this pattern comes up in the Journal of Traumatic Stress, where academics report that “studies consistently report that asylum seekers held in immigration detention have relatively high rates of mental distress.” This does not come based on one bad facility or flawed research; it is a trend across research designs as well as other countries. 

Detention for short periods of time is not harmless either. Various studies have shown that mental health symptoms increase after only short periods of confinement. The trauma stems from the experience itself, not the length of detention; which only worsens these symptoms.A 2025 study in the Journal of Migrant Health documented worsening physical health conditions as well as a limited amount of health care within the facilities. This is especially heightened with individuals who have preexisting conditions. 

However, International institutions have noticed, specifically The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They state that “Detention should normally be avoided” and only used as a last resort solution. The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies detention as a major risk to migrants' mental and physical health. These are not activist statements. They are formal conclusions from global health and legal authorities.

On one side of the argument, detention may be justified in some cases that involve serious crime or are a clear flight risk. Immigration systems cannot operate without accountability. However, the narrow justification does not match how today's detention is being used. Namely, many of those confined right now are asylum seekers with no violent criminal history.

Criminologists argue that detention centers for migrants more closely resemble punitive incarceration rather than administrative processing. When detention starts to clearly resemble and function like a prison, it is hard to claim it is procedural. 

But there is another option. Community-based supervision programs, structured management of individual cases, and regular reporting systems can ensure court compliance without the documented mental and physical harm. Not only do these alternatives cost less than a detention bed and have demonstrated strong appearance rates in immigration court. If the goal really is ‘compliance’, then detention is not the only tool available. 

For a community that talks about dignity, justice, and human rights, this issue is very relevant. Immigration law should be enforced. But enforcement should not default to a system that is consistently linked to trauma, disrupted healthcare routines, and worsening mental health. The debate has nothing to do with whether a law exists. It has everything to do with how those laws are enforced. When multiple fields of study point in the same negative direction, detention becomes merely a choice, not a necessary course of action. Detention should be rare. Alternatives should be the first standard. The evidence points clearly to that.