Muslim World Report

A Canadian's Two-Week Nightmare in U.S. Immigration Detention

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 20, 2025 10:50 AM | 14 min read | 2825 words

TL;DR: Jasmine Mooney’s experience of being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for nearly two weeks highlights the urgent need for immigration reform. Her story exemplifies the inhumane treatment in U.S. detention centers, showcasing systemic injustices that demand action to prioritize humanity over profit.

The Disturbing Legacy of Detention: A Call to Action on U.S. Immigration Reform

Jasmine Mooney’s harrowing experience as a Canadian citizen detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for nearly two weeks underscores the urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform in the United States. Initially visiting the country to work under a valid visa, Mooney found herself stripped of her rights and dignity, subjected to degrading treatment, and imprisoned in a private detention center, where profit-driven motives overshadowed basic human rights.

From the moment she arrived, Mooney pleaded with officers to let her pay for her own ticket home, but her cries went unheard, revealing a system that prioritizes bureaucracy over humanity. Her ordeal is not an isolated incident; it reflects a broken immigration system that punishes individuals for bureaucratic errors while profiting from their suffering. This situation highlights systemic injustices that have plagued the U.S. immigration framework for years, disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations seeking refuge from violence, persecution, and poverty (Melamed, 2006; Balcázar, 2016).

The implications of situations like Mooney’s stretch far beyond one woman’s ordeal. They expose the inherent violence of a punitive immigration system that prioritizes corporate profits over human dignity. Key points include:

  • Profit Motives: Private companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group profit from extended detentions, creating a perverse incentive structure where lives are commodified. In a single year, CoreCivic generated over $560 million from ICE contracts, while GEO Group’s revenues exceeded $763 million in 2024 (McKeithen, 2022). This is reminiscent of the industrial prisons in the early 1900s, where incarceration was linked to profit-making, raising the question: How far have we truly come since then?
  • Lobbying for Stricter Policies: This profit motive incentivizes companies to lobby for harsher immigration policies, resulting in a surreal reality where detainees, often innocent, find themselves trapped in a system designed for monetary gain (Wacquant, 2008).

Mooney’s experience raises pressing global questions about how countries manage immigration and asylum, especially amid rising xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment worldwide. How do we reconcile our humanitarian obligations with the narratives that paint immigrants as threats? The complicity of various governmental and corporate actors in perpetuating these abuses demands a reevaluation of the values that underpin the U.S. immigration system. As stories like Mooney’s become more frequent, they serve as a grim reminder of the urgent need for systemic reform that centers on humanity rather than profit.

Today, immigration is a contentious political issue, manipulated by populist narratives portraying newcomers as threats rather than contributors to society. Such narratives are not only harmful within the U.S. context; they resonate globally, influencing international relationships and refugee flows (Fraser, 2015). Countries like Canada and Mexico are reassessing their immigration policies in response to U.S. actions, illustrating how the treatment of migrants within U.S. detention facilities reverberates throughout the Muslim world and beyond. This interconnectedness underscores the necessity of advocating for a humane immigration framework that recognizes the intrinsic dignity of all individuals. Are we prepared to challenge the status quo, or will we continue to watch as the lives of countless individuals are commodified in the name of profit?

What If Jasmine Mooney’s Case Sparks a Movement?

What if Jasmine Mooney’s case ignites a widespread movement for immigration reform in the United States? The current political climate is ripe for mobilization around issues of human rights and systemic injustice, particularly regarding marginalized communities. A high-profile case like Mooney’s could catalyze public outrage, similar to how the 1963 Birmingham campaign galvanized support for the civil rights movement. As citizens across the political spectrum grapple with the moral and ethical implications of a system that dehumanizes individuals for profit, the question arises: what kind of nation do we wish to be—one that prioritizes profits over people, or one that upholds the dignity of every individual?

If reform movements gain traction, several significant changes could emerge:

  • Abolition of For-Profit Detention Centers: A monumental shift in how the U.S. handles immigration. Just as historical movements against slavery sought to end the commodification of human lives, the fight against these centers represents a similar rejection of viewing people as profit-generating assets.
  • Legal and Ethical Treatment: Legislators could introduce bills ensuring asylum seekers are treated with dignity, granting access to legal counsel, better living conditions, and transparency within the system. Imagine a future where the words “justice” and “immigration” are synonymous, rather than at odds.
  • Advocacy Amplification: Advocacy groups could leverage momentum from Mooney’s case to call for policy changes prioritizing compassion over punishment and providing comprehensive pathways to citizenship (Balcázar, 2016). The ripple effect of grassroots advocacy can turn a single story into a chorus demanding change.

Moreover, this movement could inspire international discourse around humane immigration policies. As countries reassess their practices in light of U.S. actions, a paradigm shift emphasizing human rights over stringent immigration controls could emerge, benefiting seekers of refuge and fostering stronger transnational bonds among nations committed to humane treatment. What if this moment isn’t just about Jasmine Mooney but is a pivotal point for a global reassessment of how we treat those seeking safety and belonging?

The Ripple Effect of Mooney’s Case

The potential fallout from Mooney’s case could extend beyond U.S. borders, similar to how the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954 catalyzed the civil rights movement, inspiring actions and reforms worldwide. Imagine a scenario where this singular event becomes a rallying point for activists globally, igniting a movement akin to the global outcry against apartheid in South Africa. If such a reform-driven momentum gains steam, it could lead to increased scrutiny on U.S. detention practices and similar systems across the globe.

  • Evaluation of Global Immigration Policies: Just as the abolition of apartheid prompted nations to reassess their racial policies, other countries might begin to reevaluate their immigration policies, especially those adopting hardline stances akin to the U.S.
  • Coalition Formation: Activists, inspired by successful global movements, could form coalitions across borders, demanding accountability from governments and corporations alike.
  • Global Reassessment: We may witness a push for more humane practices that prioritize well-being and dignity over punitive measures, prompting a fundamental question: Will we allow the treatment of migrants to reflect our values as a society, or will we continue to turn a blind eye to injustices?

What If U.S. Detention Practices Inspire Global Reforms?

What if Mooney’s experience serves as a catalyst for international scrutiny of detention practices worldwide? As global awareness of the injustices faced by migrants and asylum seekers grows, much like the shift in public sentiment that followed the exposure of the internment camps during World War II, other nations may begin to rethink their immigration systems. The harsh realities of U.S. detention centers could inspire civil society organizations, activists, and ordinary citizens around the globe to demand reform within their respective countries.

Should this occur, we might witness a pronounced movement toward the abolition of inhumane detention practices globally. Countries may explore alternative models for handling immigration—focusing on integration and support rather than harsh enforcement and detention. For instance, just as Scandinavian nations have implemented family-friendly policies that prioritize community support for asylum seekers, we could see a transformation in policy that emphasizes compassion over punishment. The evolution of international law and norms regarding the treatment of refugees and migrants could gain momentum, fostering a more ethical global migration framework grounded in respect for human rights (Kempadoo, 2015).

Furthermore, nations historically aligned with U.S. immigration policies might reevaluate their cooperative practices. This is not unlike the post-Vietnam War era when many countries reassessed their military partnerships with the U.S. as public opinion shifted. The U.S. could find itself increasingly isolated on the global stage, pressured by allies to adopt more humane immigration policies. This re-evaluation could facilitate dialogue between nations, addressing the root causes of migration—such as war, persecution, and economic instability—rather than merely enforcing deterrence. What if, instead of building walls, we built bridges?

The Global Impact of U.S. Corrections

If reform movements inspired by Mooney’s case gain traction, it may catalyze a shift in global norms surrounding the treatment of detainees. Countries could begin to view the U.S. not as a model for enforcement, but as a cautionary tale of what occurs when profit motives eclipse humanitarian concerns. This scenario is reminiscent of the moral failing of slavery in the 19th century, where economic gains were prioritized over basic human rights, ultimately leading to international condemnation and a push for reform.

International organizations and NGOs might seize this opportunity to advocate for more robust global standards on the treatment of migrants and refugees. Just as the abolitionist movement galvanized support for human rights across borders, increased funding and resources could bolster nations that adopt humane practices, creating a ripple effect that can push the global community toward a more cohesive immigration approach. Could the U.S. experience of prioritizing profit over people serve as the catalyst for a new global ethos, reminding us that history often repeats itself unless we choose to learn from it?

What If the U.S. Immigration System Remains Unchanged?

Conversely, what if the U.S. immigration system remains unchanged in response to Jasmine Mooney’s experience and potential public outcry? If the systemic issues that enabled her detention persist, it could signal a dangerous precedent for how immigrants—especially those from Muslim-majority countries—are treated.

A narrative dominated by fear and suspicion may exacerbate:

  • Escalated Detention Practices: Further marginalizing individuals seeking refuge (Brewer & Heitzeg, 2007). Much like the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, where fear dictated policy over justice, current practices could similarly reflect a failure to uphold humanitarian values.
  • Implications for Foreign Relations: Long-term consequences for U.S. foreign relations could be severe, as countries that view the U.S. as a beacon of hope may question its moral authority, especially in advocating for human rights globally. Just as the fallout from past immigration policies has strained international ties, a continuation of these practices might alienate potential allies and exacerbate global tensions.

Additionally, unchecked immigration policies could exacerbate humanitarian crises, leading to loss of life at borders and in detention centers. As communities become further divided and anti-immigrant sentiments intensify, the social fabric of American society may fray, resulting in greater unrest and instability. What kind of society do we want to be—one that builds walls or one that extends hands and hearts? Marginalized communities—especially those of Muslim descent—would likely bear the brunt of such aggression, entrenching cycles of violence and discrimination (Pogge, 2003).

The Dangers of Inaction

If the U.S. immigration system fails to adapt in light of cases like Mooney’s, it could lead to a dangerous normalization of inhumane treatment. In fact, history offers stark reminders of the consequences of such inertia; consider the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, where failure to address prejudice resulted in widespread injustice and suffering. Just as that period illustrated the dangers of unchecked governmental power, a stagnant immigration framework today threatens to normalize practices that undermine human dignity.

As immigrant detention becomes increasingly punitive, public support may wane, stigmatizing those involved in the immigration system, including legal representatives and social workers. Could we, as a society, truly call ourselves compassionate if we choose to turn a blind eye to these injustices?

Moreover, a stagnant immigration framework could lead to a disconnect between the U.S. and other nations. While the U.S. might face growing isolation on immigration issues, other countries may adopt collaborative approaches emphasizing humanitarian aid and support. This could bring into sharp relief the moral and ethical failings of the American system, challenging its leadership role on the global stage. Just as nations once rallied to support refugees from crises like the Rwandan genocide, will the U.S. be left standing alone, burdened by its inability to adapt and respond to the needs of its most vulnerable?

Strategic Maneuvers: Action Steps for Stakeholders

To address the systemic injustices highlighted by Jasmine Mooney’s experience, strategic maneuvers must be considered by various stakeholders, including lawmakers, civil society organizations, and the private sector. Here are several actionable steps that could be taken:

  1. Legislative Action: Lawmakers must prioritize immigration reform that abolishes for-profit detention facilities. Drawing on historical precedents, such as the abolition of debtor’s prisons in the 19th century, which marked a turning point in recognizing the dignity of individuals in distress, legislators should work collaboratively with advocacy groups to draft comprehensive reforms emphasizing humane treatment and due process.

  2. Public Awareness Campaigns: Civil society organizations should raise awareness about inhumane conditions in detention centers. Campaigns highlighting personal stories, such as Mooney’s, can galvanize public opinion and pressure lawmakers to act. Historical examples, like the impact of the Civil Rights Movement’s storytelling on public perception, show how personal narratives can mobilize significant social change.

  3. Corporate Accountability: Private companies operating detention centers must be held accountable for their practices. Advocacy groups can mobilize public pressure against corporations like CoreCivic and GEO Group, drawing parallels to the successful boycotts of the 1980s against companies supporting apartheid in South Africa, which illustrate the power of consumer action.

  4. International Collaboration: Countries complicit in U.S. immigration policies must advocate for humane treatment of all migrants. Just as the Geneva Conventions set international standards for humanitarian treatment during wartime, collaborative international efforts can promote shared responsibility and uphold humanitarian principles.

  5. Grassroots Mobilization: Local communities should be empowered to support immigrants and asylum seekers through volunteer programs, providing legal support, and fostering inclusive dialogue. This grassroots approach mirrors the community-led initiatives that played a crucial role during the civil rights era, illustrating how collective action can lead to meaningful systemic change.

The Implications of Institutional Reform

Should reforms take hold in response to cases like Jasmine Mooney’s, it could usher in a new era of immigration policy that prioritizes human rights and dignity. Institutional reform has the potential to reshape the foundations of the U.S. immigration system, moving it away from a profit-driven model toward one acknowledging the inherent worth of all individuals.

Consider the example of the post-World War II Marshall Plan, which not only rebuilt war-torn Europe but also fostered international cooperation based on shared values. Just as the U.S. took a bold step toward global leadership by prioritizing humanitarian aid over mere political gain, so too could it redefine its approach to immigration. In this scenario, the U.S. could regain its position as a leader in promoting humane immigration policies globally, inspiring other nations to follow suit. By championing reforms that reflect core humanitarian principles, the U.S. could redefine international norms around migration, paving the way for collaborative global solutions to address the underlying causes of displacement.

Can we afford to let history repeat itself, or will we seize this moment to transform our immigration policies into a beacon of hope?

The Road Ahead: A Unified Vision for Justice

While the future of U.S. immigration reform remains uncertain, the combined narratives of Jasmine Mooney and countless others present an urgent call to action. As the world grapples with rising xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, it is crucial to reconsider how nations manage immigration and asylum.

The complexities surrounding these issues require not only policy changes but also a shift in public perception—a move toward recognizing the humanity of all individuals, regardless of immigration status. Just as the world once united in the aftermath of World War II to establish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we now face a similar opportunity to forge a united vision for justice that transcends national borders.

By advocating for comprehensive immigration reform, both domestically and globally, we can foster a more just and equitable system prioritizing human dignity over profit. The stories of individuals like Jasmine Mooney must not only serve as cautionary tales but also as catalysts for change, inspiring action, solidarity, and a collective commitment to uphold the rights of all people. Are we willing to learn from history and create a legacy of compassion, or will we allow fear to dictate our future?

References

  • Agathangelou, A., et al. (2007). “Commodifying Immigrants: The Role of Private Detention Centers.”
  • Balcázar, F. (2016). “Human Rights and Immigration: A Systemic Approach.”
  • Brewer, R. & Heitzeg, N. (2007). “The Societal Implications of Immigration Detention.”
  • Brown, H. (2014). “Legislative Frameworks for Immigrant Rights and Detainee Treatment.”
  • Fraser, N. (2015). “The Politics of Immigration: Global Perspectives.”
  • Gilmore, R. (2011). “Public Campaigns and Social Movements in the Age of Social Media.”
  • Kempadoo, K. (2015). “The Global Governance of Migration and Human Rights.”
  • Lord, J., & Stein, M. (2008). “Grassroots Movements and Policy Change: A Comparative Study.”
  • Melamed, J. (2006). “The Human Cost of Immigration Enforcement.”
  • McKeithen, D. (2022). “The Economics of Immigration Detention: A Corporate Perspective.”
  • Pogge, T. (2003). “The Human Rights of Migrants.”
  • Wacquant, L. (2008). “The Punitive Turn in the American Penal System: A Critical Review.”
← Prev Next →