More Canadians, including children, detained in U.S. for immigration violations, new data show

Not surprising, inevitable result of sweeping crackdowns:

A sweeping immigration crackdown in the United States is increasingly ensnaring Canadians who don’t have criminal records – including at least six children – new U.S. government data show. 

An estimated 207 Canadians have now been held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at some point since January, when President Donald Trump took office. The total number of Canadians held in 2024 was 130.

Earlier this year, an initial Globe and Mail analysis revealed that ICE had detained two Canadian toddlers in May at a remote facility in Texas. The analysis also showed that Canadians held by ICE were more likely to have criminal records than many other nationalities swept up in the White House’s mass deportation campaign, which has primarily targeted immigrants from Latin America. 

In the first half of 2025, almost 70 per cent of Canadians placed in immigration detention had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. 

Now, a growing number of Canadian detainees are being held on immigration violations alone, updated enforcement data covering late July to mid-October show.

Of the Canadians detained during this period, some 44 per cent had no criminal records or pending charges against them, The Globe has found. The detainees include four children ranging in age from under two years old to about 16 years old.

Source: More Canadians, including children, detained in U.S. for immigration violations, new data show

Attorneys Say They Can’t See Immigration Clients At Alligator Alcatraz

Of note:

Immigration attorneys say they have been unable to see their clients sent to the Alligator Alcatraz detention facility in Florida. Donald Trump toured the state-run camp with Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and implied immigrants would be deterred from escaping because nearby alligators would eat them. In the haste to build and promote the facility, including by selling online merchandise, Florida and Trump officials neglected to provide access to attorneys and ensure detained immigrants could be located and meet with legal representatives to guarantee due process.

Attorneys with clients at Alligator Alcatraz, built in the Florida Everglades, criticize the lack of due process and access to counsel, and express concerns about the conditions. The Miami Herald described detainees suffering from mosquito bites, days without showers and “scant sunlight coming through the heavy-duty tents, making it difficult for them to know whether it is day or night.”

Two weeks have passed since a Florida Highway Patrol officer arrested the Honduran immigrant client of Magdalena Cuprys of Cuprys & Associates. “He was stopped at a weigh station in Tampa because he owns a construction company, and he was required to stop for his truck to be weighed,” Cuprys told me. “The client had a valid Florida driver’s license. The patrol officer called Customs and Border Protection on him. The client called me, and the officer took the phone from him and spoke with me.”

She asked why CBP was alerted. “I was advised that the client looked Hispanic, had a Hispanic name, and now they are collaborating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and CBP, and their orders are to call CBP any time they encounter anyone they suspect is an immigrant,” said Cuprys. “I asked if they would have followed the same process if it had been me driving, and the response was it depends if you look Hispanic.”…

Source: Attorneys Say They Can’t See Immigration Clients At Alligator Alcatraz

Immigrants with no criminal convictions represent sharpest growth in ICE detention population

Not surprising, unfortunately, no respect for rule of law, due process and competence:

President Trump is enacting a mass deportation campaign promised to be the largest in U.S. history. New data is giving a clearer picture of exactly what that looks like: at least 56,000 immigrants are being held in ICE detention.

According to the Deportation Data Project, a group that collects immigration numbers, about half the people in detention don’t have criminal convictions. That’s close to 30,000 people in detention, without a criminal record — the group that has grown the most in recent months.

“You listen to Tom Homan and Stephen Miller, they’re saying things like they are going after the worst of the worst, the people who are murderers,” says UCLA Professor Graeme Blair, referring to President Trump’s ‘Border czar’ Tom Homan and key White House Aide Stephen Miller. “That’s just not what the data says about the people that they are actually arresting.”

Source: Immigrants with no criminal convictions represent sharpest growth in ICE detention population

LoP: Immigration Detention in Canada 

Another useful primer by the Library of Parliament:

Canada’s immigration detention system is governed by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations(the Regulations) and the international human rights treaties ratified by the government. The Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) is responsible for managing the detention process of foreign nationals and permanent residents, while the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada reviews immigration detention decisions.

Canadian legal framework for immigration detention

The reasons for which a foreign national or permanent resident may be detained in Canada are set out in the IRPA, and include detention:

  • upon entry into Canada, to complete an examination and confirm identity;
  • for suspected inadmissibility on grounds of security, human rights violations or serious crimes;
  • based on a reasonable belief that the person is a danger to the public; and
  • based on doubt that they will appear for an examination, an admissibility hearing or a related legal proceeding.

The Regulations set out further factors to be considered when determining whether to detain an individual, including any past criminal convictions, links to organized crime, organized human smuggling or trafficking, or unwillingness to cooperate with government officials to establish their identity.

According to the CBSA’s recent data on persons detained, by ground for detention, most individuals are held for administrative reasons and pose no risk to the public.

When a person is detained, the Immigration Division reviews the grounds for detention within 48 hours and again within the next 7 days, then every subsequent period of 30 days. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that a person subject to the IRPA’s detention review process has access to a meaningful and robust review that considers the context and circumstances of their individual case. Every person must have a real opportunity to challenge their detention. During the detention review, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, through designated officials, must demonstrate that there are reasons that continue to warrant detention. The Immigration Division may order the release of a foreign national and impose any conditions it deems necessary.

There is no limit to the period for which a person can be held in immigration detention. As shown in Table 1, in 2023–2024, a person held for immigration purposes was detained, on average, for 19 days. However, the median shows that, between 2012–2013 and 2023–2024, one half of immigration detainees were held for three days or less….

Source: Immigration Detention in Canada

Mooney: I’m the Canadian who was detained by Ice for two weeks. It felt like I had been kidnapped

Horrific example of bureaucracy at work, implementing the cruel and flawed policies of the Trump administration:

There was no explanation, no warning. One minute, I was in an immigration office talking to an officer about my work visa, which had been approved months before and allowed me, a Canadian, to work in the US. The next, I was told to put my hands against the wall, and patted down like a criminal before being sent to an Ice detention center without the chance to talk to a lawyer….

And that’s when I made a decision: I would never allow myself to feel sorry for my situation again. No matter how hard this was, I had to be grateful. Because every woman I met was in an even more difficult position than mine.

There were around 140 of us in our unit. Many women had lived and worked in the US legally for years but had overstayed their visas – often after reapplying and being denied. They had all been detained without warning.

If someone is a criminal, I agree they should be taken off the streets. But not one of these women had a criminal record. These women acknowledged that they shouldn’t have overstayed and took responsibility for their actions. But their frustration wasn’t about being held accountable; it was about the endless, bureaucratic limbo they had been trapped in.

The real issue was how long it took to get out of the system, with no clear answers, no timeline and no way to move forward. Once deported, many have no choice but to abandon everything they own because the cost of shipping their belongings back is too high.

I met a woman who had been on a road trip with her husband. She said they had 10-year work visas. While driving near the San Diego border, they mistakenly got into a lane leading to Mexico. They stopped and told the agent they didn’t have their passports on them, expecting to be redirected. Instead, they were detained. They are both pastors.

I met a family of three who had been living in the US for 11 years with work authorizations. They paid taxes and were waiting for their green cards. Every year, the mother had to undergo a background check, but this time, she was told to bring her whole family. When they arrived, they were taken into custody and told their status would now be processed from within the detention center.

Another woman from Canada had been living in the US with her husband who was detained after a traffic stop. She admitted she had overstayed her visa and accepted that she would be deported. But she had been stuck in the system for almost six weeks because she hadn’t had her passport. Who runs casual errands with their passport?

One woman had a 10-year visa. When it expired, she moved back to her home country, Venezuela. She admitted she had overstayed by one month before leaving. Later, she returned for a vacation and entered the US without issue. But when she took a domestic flight from Miami to Los Angeles, she was picked up by Ice and detained. She couldn’t be deported because Venezuela wasn’t accepting deportees. She didn’t know when she was getting out.

There was a girl from India who had overstayed her student visa for three days before heading back home. She then came back to the US on a new, valid visa to finish her master’s degree and was handed over to Ice due to the three days she had overstayed on her previous visa.

There were women who had been picked up off the street, from outside their workplaces, from their homes. All of these women told me that they had been detained for time spans ranging from a few weeks to 10 months. One woman’s daughter was outside the detention center protesting for her release….

The reality became clear: Ice detention isn’t just a bureaucratic nightmare. It’s a business. These facilities are privately owned and run for profit.

Companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group receive government funding based on the number of people they detain, which is why they lobby for stricter immigration policies. It’s a lucrative business: CoreCivic made over $560m from Ice contracts in a single year. In 2024, GEO Group made more than $763m from Ice contracts.

The more detainees, the more money they make. It stands to reason that these companies have no incentive to release people quickly. What I had experienced was finally starting to make sense.

This is not just my story. It is the story of thousands and thousands of people still trapped in a system that profits from their suffering. I am writing in the hope that someone out there – someone with the power to change any of this – can help do something.

The strength I witnessed in those women, the love they gave despite their suffering, is what gives me faith. Faith that no matter how flawed the system, how cruel the circumstances, humanity will always shine through.

Even in the darkest places, within the most broken systems, humanity persists. Sometimes, it reveals itself in the smallest, most unexpected acts of kindness: a shared meal, a whispered prayer, a hand reaching out in the dark. We are defined by the love we extend, the courage we summon and the truths we are willing to tell.

Source: I’m the Canadian who was detained by Ice for two weeks. It felt like I had been kidnapped

Human-rights groups outraged at plan to detain immigrants in federal prison

Expected:

Human-rights groups are expressing outrage at government plans to lock up immigrants who have not been convicted of a crime in federal prisons.

Tuesday’s federal budget proposes changes to the law to allow people facing deportation deemed to be high risk – including posing a potential flight risk or a threat to public safety – to be incarcerated in federal prison.

The move follows the decision by provinces to end immigration-detention agreements with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to house immigrants in their jails this year…

Source: Human-rights groups outraged at plan to detain immigrants in federal prison

And the Minister’s response:

Immigration Minister Marc Miller confirmed to Radio-Canada that the federal government will be using its penitentiaries to hold some foreign nationals for immigration purposes.

He said those detainees will be separated from the prison population, but that both groups could be sharing services.

“It would be separate housing and it would not be in the general population, because they are not criminals,” Miller said, following Radio-Canada’s story on the government’s proposal buried at the bottom of the federal budget tabled Tuesday.

The Trudeau government wrote it wants to “enable the use of federal correctional facilities for the purpose of high-risk immigration detention.”

The statement has angered human rights organizations, some calling the plan “completely unacceptable,” as reported by Radio-Canada Wednesday.

Source: Immigration minister responds to critics over plan to detain migrants in penitentiaries

Dutrisac: La prison pour asile

Interesting example of turning an opinion column on migrant detention centres into reinforcing Dutrisac’s legitimate concern over the declining weight of Quebec given its lower immigration levels, with a barb thrown in regarding McKinsey and Dominic Barton:

C’est en janvier 2017 que Justin Trudeau a lancé son tweet où il invitait « ceux qui fuient la persécution, la terreur, la guerre » à débarquer au Canada — « sachez que le Canada vous accueillera », écrivait-il. Six ans plus tard, le gouvernement fédéral a inauguré un nouveau centre de détention pour incarcérer certains demandeurs d’asile. On peut penser qu’à l’époque, un tel développement n’avait pas effleuré l’esprit du premier ministre canadien.

Dans ce tweet innocent, Justin Trudeau fait preuve d’une bonne dose d’inconscience, si ce n’est d’hypocrisie, car le Canada, aussi vaste et généreux le croit-on, ne peut raisonnablement accueillir les dizaines de millions de personnes qui sont forcées tous les ans de quitter leur pays.

Comme nous l’apprenait Le Devoir dans son édition de samedi, Ottawa a inauguré en octobre à Laval un centre de détention pour les demandeurs d’asile et les immigrants temporaires, ce qu’on appelle par euphémisme un « centre de surveillance ». Construit au coût de 50 millions, le nouveau centre remplace d’anciennes installations jugées vétustes. L’Agence des services frontaliers du Canada (ASFC), de laquelle relève le centre, en a profité pour augmenter le nombre de places pour le porter à 153, contre 109 pour l’ancien bâtiment. Seulement 66 « détenus » s’y trouvaient à la fin décembre, tandis que les centres correctionnels administrés par Québec en accueillaient une quinzaine. Les pensionnaires de cette prison fédérale « dorée », mais prison quand même puisqu’ils ne peuvent en sortir à moins d’être libérés, ont la particularité de n’avoir commis aucun crime qui justifierait leur détention. Des papiers qui ne sont pas en règle, des doutes sur l’identité du ressortissant étranger ou des risques de fuite sont évoqués par l’agence pour justifier cette mesure de « dernier recours ». Comme dans les vraies prisons, les détenus n’ont pas droit à leur cellulaire, ni accès à Internet ; on peut se demander pourquoi.

Les organismes de défense des libertés civiles comme Amnistie internationale dénoncent l’incarcération de ces migrants qui n’ont commis aucun crime. Contrairement au Québec et à l’Ontario, la Colombie-Britannique a mis fin à l’entente avec l’ASFC visant la détention de migrants dans des prisons provinciales. L’Alberta et la Nouvelle-Écosse ont annoncé qu’elles en feraient autant. Depuis 2015, il y aurait eu 8000 de ces détenus au Canada — la période de détention moyenne est de 22 jours —, dont 2000 dans des prisons provinciales et le reste dans les trois centres de détention de l’ASFC.

C’est relativement peu considérant les millions de ressortissants étrangers qui sont entrés au pays depuis huit ans. Au Québec, par exemple, les quelque 80 migrants détenus actuellement se comparent aux 36 000 demandeurs d’asile qui seraient entrés par le chemin Roxham dans la seule année de 2022, ce qui s’ajoute aux dizaines de milliers de demandeurs, déjà présents sur le territoire québécois, qui sont toujours en attente d’une décision d’Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (IRCC). Ou encore aux 150 000 demandeurs d’asile qui, selon Le Journal de Montréal, sont arrivés au Québec depuis cinq ans, soit 52 % du total canadien.

Or, que ce soit pour obtenir un permis de travail des autorités fédérales ou pour obtenir une réponse définitive sur le statut de réfugiés, les délais ne font que s’allonger. Pour les demandeurs d’asile qui passent par le chemin Roxham, ces délais peuvent s’étendre sur plusieurs années. Ceux dont la demande est rejetée ont le temps de s’établir ici avant de recevoir un avis d’éviction, éviction que nombre d’entre eux tenteront d’éviter en se réfugiant dans la clandestinité. Le système est dysfonctionnel, comme les autres volets de l’immigration. Dans ce contexte, on peut se demander à quoi peut bien servir la détention traumatisante d’une poignée de migrants.

Parmi les ministères fédéraux, c’est l’IRCC qui, depuis 2015, a dépensé le plus pour des conseils en gestion de la firme de consultants américaine McKinsey, a rapporté Radio-Canada. Or l’ironie, c’est que la désorganisation notoire de l’IRCC s’est aggravée en raison de l’accroissement pléthorique des seuils canadiens d’immigration, une recommandation de 2016 d’un comité formé par Ottawa et présidé par Dominic Barton, alors premier dirigeant mondial de McKinsey. Par la suite, le consultant a cofondé The Century Initiative, ou Initiative du siècle, un lobby qui promeut le projet de porter à 100 millions la population du Canada d’ici 2100.

Constater qu’à nos frais, nous participons dans ce pays, au sein duquel le Québec perdra inexorablement son poids démographique et donc politique, à une expérimentation sociale inédite concoctée par McKinsey n’a rien de rassurant.

Source: La prison pour asile

New immigration detention bill could give Australia a fresh chance to comply with international law

Of interest:

Last week, independent MP Andrew Wilkie reintroduced to federal parliament the Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention Bill 2022. This bill gives Australia the chance to bring its immigration detention regime in line with basic international law requirements for the first time since 1992.Wilkie’s bill presents a timely opportunity for the new federal government to reform a regime that leading legal and human rights organisations have called “inhumane, unnecessary, and unlawful”.

Australia’s human rights commitment

Australia has committed to uphold human rights and protect refugees, including committing to not arbitrarily or indefinitely detain adults or children. Despite this, under Australia’s current mandatory detention regime, non-citizens without a valid visa must be detained as a first resort for potentially indefinite periods and without access to review by a court.Australia’s commitments under international law are not enforceable under Australian law unless they are implemented through legislation. This means that in the absence of legislation that fully protects the right to liberty, the Australian High Court has consistently held that indefinite immigration detention is lawful under Australian law.

International criticism

The UN has repeatedly condemned Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers and refugees as contrary to Australia’s international obligations and “an affront to the protection of human rights”. This includes statements and decisions from:

  • UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet in 2018
  • the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, in 2017
  • the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez, in 2015 and 2017
  • UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi in 2017
  • The UN Human Rights Committee in 2013.

International criticisms have largely focused on Australia’s failure to respect the rights of individuals to not be detained arbitrarily or indefinitely; subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; or returned to a place where they will face a real risk of harm.Despite widespread condemnation of Australia’s system of mandatory and indefinite detention, over 1400 people remain in onshore immigration detention facilities today. A further 217 people remain on Nauru and Manus.In April 2022, the average period of time people were held in immigration detention facilities in Australia was 726 days. Of those in onshore detention, 136 have been detained for more than five years.

“Detention without charge or guilt”

Wilkie’s bill proposes abolishing the existing system of mandatory detention. Under the bill, detention of non-citizens without valid visas could only be ordered where it is necessary and proportionate to the circumstances. This would require an individual assessment.Detention would be authorised in Australia only (not offshore) for certain purposes, and only as a measure of last resort after all alternatives have been considered. Adults could only be detained for a maximum of three months and children for seven days. While extensions may be necessary in certain circumstances, detention would be subject to independent oversight and judicial review by the courts.When introducing the bill, Wilkie argued this legislation was urgently needed as

we face the bizarre and outrageous situation in this country where someone, in some circumstances, can be detained indefinitely, without charge and without having been found guilty of anything.

He described this as a punitive arrangement that is immoral and shows “a terrible indifference and arrogance to international law”.In seconding the bill, independent MP Kylea Tink said“Australia’s immigration regime is unique in the world. It is uniquely cruel.” Tink also noted Wilkie’s point that the regime came with a vast financial and human toll, costing Australian taxpayers between $360,000 – $460,000 per year to hold a person in immigration detention in Australia.Independent MP Monique Ryan recognised that

Australia’s immigration detention regime causes severe and widespread mental and physical health impacts on people seeking refuge.

Australia’s negative human rights record also affects its ability to hold other countries to account for human rights violations. China accused Australia of human rights hypocrisy after it criticised China’s repression of the Uyghur ethnic minority. And China is certainly not alone in its criticisms.While legislation alone is not enough, it could provide a significant first step in bringing Australia’s immigration detention regime in line with its human rights obligations.Both major political parties in Australia have historically supported onshore and offshore mandatory detention of non-citizens.However, with the current make-up of the parliament and a new government committed to uniting Australians around “our shared values of fairness and opportunity” and “kindness to those in need”, this is an opportunity for Australia to demonstrate a renewed commitment to international law and the fundamental principles on which the UN system is based.

Source: New immigration detention bill could give Australia a fresh chance to comply with international law

B.C. ending immigration detention arrangement with CBSA, citing human rights

Will be interesting too see if Quebec and Nova Scotia follow suit:

British Columbia is ending an agreement with Canada Border Services Agency to hold immigration detainees in provincial correctional centres, saying the arrangement doesn’t align with its stance on human rights.

Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth said in a statement Thursday the province conducted a review that analyzed its contract with the agency, including public safety, and consulted with advocacy groups.

“The review brought to light that aspects of the arrangement do not align with our government’s commitment to upholding human rights standards or our dedication to pursuing social justice and equity for everyone,” he said.

The report said the number of immigration detainees in provincial custody is declining but provincial jails are used to holding “high risk detainees.” It also noted that while CBSA compensates BC Corrections to hold detainees, it does not cover the total cost.

“This is a trend that is likely to continue given the overall reduction in the number of detainees in provincial custody. If the arrangement ended, these are resources that could be used to support BC Corrections’ clients, including individuals in custody with complex needs and behaviours,” it said.

The move comes following calls from the groups Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for B.C. to terminate its immigration detention contract with the federal government.

The groups released a report in June 2021 saying immigrants with no criminal charges against them are detained in holding centres, federal prisons or provincial jails for “indeterminate amounts of time.” They launched a campaign calling on B.C. to end its contract last October, and later expanded their push to Quebec and Nova Scotia.

“Canada is among the few countries in the global north with no legal limit on the duration of immigration detention, meaning people can be detained for months or years with no end in sight,” the groups said in a joint news release following the announcement. “British Columbia’s decision is a major milestone on the path to ending immigration detention in provincial jails in Canada.”

Ketty Nivyabandi, secretary-general of Amnesty International Canada, said in the statement that she commends B.C. on being the first province to make the decision, calling ita “momentous step.”

“This is a true human rights victory, one which upholds the dignity and rights of people who come to Canada in search of safety or a better life,” she said.

Farnworth said BC Corrections will be providing CBSA with 12 months’ notice as is required under its current contract.

The human rights groups said BC Corrections has told them the province will give the agency official written notice to terminate the contract next week.

Source: B.C. ending immigration detention arrangement with CBSA, citing human rights

Opening the ‘Black Box’ of Japan’s immigration system

Fascinating and disturbing read:
Japan’s immigration agency has been accused of operating in an untransparent manner, largely because there is no way for the public to find out what is happening inside its detention facilities. Authorities have pledged to improve the situation, but some people believe greater public involvement will be needed before meaningful change can take place. Among them is an American documentary filmmaker and a former Japanese immigration officer.

A memorial service for a Sri Lankan woman, Wishma Sandamari, was held at a temple in Aichi Prefecture on March 6. It was attended by her younger sister, Purnima, and other supporters. The day marked the first anniversary of Wishma’s death at an immigration detention facility. During the six months the 33-year-old was detained, she repeatedly complained of ill health, but did not receive the care she asked for. The Justice Ministry admits that in Wishma’s case, the facility’s medical system was insufficient. But her death has not been the only tragedy to occur within the walls of Japan’s detention centers in recent years. Since 2007, there have been 17 deaths, including suicides.

Mano Akemi, a volunteer who makes regular visits to detainees, met with Wishma and became friends. She was devastated by her death and is advocating for greater transparency in detention centers. “The biggest problem is the immigration system in ,” she says. “It really is a black box. I think speaking up has been essential, and I am trying to make more people aware of this problem.”

In response to the criticism surrounding Wishma’s death, Japan’s immigration agency has announced 12 improvement measures, including raising awareness among staff members, strengthening the facilities’ medical responses, and setting clear guidelines for granting provisional release to detainees who are suffering ill health.

But the agency is also calling for controversial changes to Japan’s immigration law. It says the current legislation creates a situation where there are more people in detention than there otherwise would be. The reason, they say, is that it allows people with no legitimate asylum claim to repeatedly apply for it to avoid deportation. Under international law, asylum seekers cannot be deported.

Thomas Ash, an American filmmaker living in , recently made a documentary named “Ushiku” that urges people in to face the reality of how their country’s immigration system works. He says he “started filming with the strong belief that it is imperative to leave evidence so that if an incident occurs there will be no denying it in the future.”

In October 2019, Ash began visiting an immigration detention center in Ushiku City, Ibaraki Prefecture — one of the largest facilities of its type in — and met with detainees on a volunteer basis. At the time, around 265 detainees were being held there. There are 17 such facilities in the country with a total capacity of nearly 3,400 detainees.

In the winter of that year, Ash began secretly filming his interviews with detainees using a small camera, despite that recording is strictly prohibited. Visitors are allowed to meet with detainees, but only with the understanding that journalistic research is barred. The documentary was shot over the course of about a year.

In one scene captured in the Ushiku facility’s visiting room, an asylum seeker tells Ash he is refusing to comply with his deportation order because he fears persecution if he returns to his home country.

Another scene shows a young detainee who has gone on a hunger strike.

The detainee was one of several at the center who went on a hunger strike around the time that Ash began filming his documentary. The protest spread from spring 2019 to other facilities across the country, with a total of 235 detainees involved between June 2019 and January 2020. In June 2019 one Nigerian detainee died while on hunger strike at a Nagasaki Prefecture facility.

The film also contains footage that was submitted as evidence in a lawsuit filed by a former detainee who spent a total of five years in detention and was diagnosed with depression. Immigration officials explained that he became violent while asking for tranquilizers so they forcibly restrained him. They say the practice, known as “seiatsu” or suppression, is in accordance with facility regulations.

But Ash says, “Why did they go that far? It’s a detention center, not a prison, right? They should not be considered as criminals. Even if they are illegal residents, they have human rights.”

There has been criticism about Ash’s decision to film in secret among support groups and some lawyers providing aid to detainees. The documentary is controversial not only because it was made covertly, breaking the agency’s rules, but also because of the possible repercussions for the detainees it features.

The Immigration Agency told NHK it “considers filming while knowing that recording is prohibited inside the facilities to be an unforgivable act, no matter how much it is based on personal conviction.”

The director explains, “I myself believe that rules or laws should be respected, but by respecting laws or rules, someone can also become a perpetrator.” He says he felt compelled to make the film: “This person in front of me may die. He will probably die. I had to document that reality.”

Ash says it’s essential that people know what is really going on inside Japan’s detention centers. “I think there are some people who are trying to sweep immigration and refugee issues under the carpet,” he says, “as if we don’t have to think about them because they are problems of distant countries or only of non-Japanese.

“They are people suffering here. This is something that is actually happening. I want to ask. It’s happening in your country. Are you okay with that?”

The film has caught many viewers by surprise. One woman in her twenties says she was shocked by how little she knew about the issue. Another man said he felt ashamed that he didn’t know about the reality of what is happening in and that Japanese people need to make this their problem.

Others have also been speaking out. Kinoshita Yoichi is a former immigration officer who leads a research group that advocates for immigration reform from the outside.

“I think the Immigration Services Agency has now realized that the days of handing out punishments without regard to the public interest or concern have passed,” Kinoshita says. “The public can play a very important role in monitoring what the agency is doing so it’s very important that people take an interest in the issue.”

People in are starting to make their voices heard on refugee causes. Local charity events and donation boxes are opening to help people displaced by the Ukrainian crisis. But is the government truly considering changes to its immigration policies?

The justice minister, Furukawa Yoshihisa, announced in April that he wants to create a new policy called ‘subsidiary protection’ to support people, including Ukrainians, who are escaping war in their homelands but do not meet the requirements to be recognized as refugees in .

But he also indicated the ministry would continue to support government policies proposed last year that would strengthen the agency’s power to deport people, including asylum seekers, as a way to deal with long-term detention. The government had withdrawn the proposal amid strong public opposition in the wake of Wishma’s death.

“At present, ‘fleeing conflict’ is not a sufficient reason to be recognized as a refugee in , which has one of the strictest screening processes in the world,” says Takahashi Wataru, a human rights lawyer and researcher on immigration laws for the Federation of Bar Association. “Less than 1 percent of applicants are granted refugee status. The government appears to be using what looks like a positive move as a cover to pass its former plan, which aims to strengthen its deportation policy and continues to evade discussing the core of the issue. The government needs to reform its strict screening process to recognize the refugee status of people fleeing war, including Ukrainians, and end long-term detention of asylum seekers.”

The UNHCR has said that measures for subsidiary protection should not replace or undermine the refugee protection system of asylum seekers.

The opposition parties proposed their own plan in early May. It recommends setting up an independent expert committee to examine refugee applications, make a court order necessary for detention, and limit detention-period extensions to six months.

The system of indefinite detention has drawn criticism from the UN’s Human Rights Council for being inhumane. At the same time, Japanese politicians and businesses have said they are willing to embrace a more diverse society — partly due to the country’s severe labor shortage. But the confusion over immigration has only sown anxiety among non-Japanese residents.

Public awareness is on the rise, in part because of Wishma’s death, Ash’s documentary and the invasion of . Any changes that take place are likely to happen slowly, but these factors may add momentum for reform.

Source: Opening the ‘Black Box’ of Japan’s immigration system