Muslim World Report

Canadian Woman Reveals Inhumane Conditions in US Detention Centers

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 22, 2025 11:18 AM | 13 min read | 2586 words

TL;DR: Jasmine Mooney’s experience in U.S. immigration detention centers reveals inhumane conditions that violate human dignity and necessitate urgent reform in immigration policy. The systemic issues must be addressed to protect vulnerable populations and restore public trust.

The Dehumanization of Immigrants: Lessons from Jasmine Mooney’s Experience

In a deeply troubling revelation, Jasmine Mooney, a Canadian woman, has laid bare the harrowing realities of the U.S. immigration detention system. Confined in a cramped cell with five other women, Mooney described the dehumanizing conditions emblematic of systemic failures within U.S. immigration policy. She was forced to lie on the concrete floor under aluminum blankets, subjected to continuous, blinding lighting that obscured any sense of time. Her testimony serves as a haunting representation of how immigrants—especially from marginalized communities—are treated in such facilities (Swanson, 2019).

This is not an isolated incident; it exemplifies a broader trend within U.S. immigration policy that has persisted across multiple administrations. For instance, during the late 1990s, a surge in detentions led to the establishment of facilities that were often compared to prisons, as reported by many human rights organizations. The current Biden administration has faced significant criticism for failing to adequately address these conditions, mirroring the challenges faced by previous administrations (McCubbins & Ramirez, 2021). How many more stories like Mooney’s must we hear before we recognize that behind the policies are human lives deserving of dignity and respect?

A Systematic Disdain for Human Dignity

The implications of such treatment extend far beyond individual stories. They underscore a systematic disdain for human dignity and highlight the normalization of violence against vulnerable populations in the name of national security and immigration control (Whyte, 2009). The punitive nature of immigration policies has increasingly emphasized detention over compassion—a trend that gained momentum during the Trump administration and has continued under Biden.

Critics argue that this deliberate dehumanization plays a dual role:

  • It intimidates immigrants.
  • It fosters a culture of fear and exclusion, disproportionately targeting individuals based on nationality, ethnic background, and perceived threats (Gomberg-Muñoz, 2012).

Just as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II illustrated a dark chapter in U.S. history, Mooney’s experience stands as a clarion call for urgent reform in immigration policy to ensure that human rights are upheld and violations eradicated (Bohren et al., 2015). The stakes of inaction are profound, not just for those directly impacted but for the integrity of a nation claiming to uphold justice and human rights (McCrudden, 2008). If significant reforms are not enacted, the current framework will likely continue to disproportionately affect marginalized communities, reinforcing a culture of fear that deters many from seeking asylum or legal pathways to residency (Otnow Lewis et al., 1985). Are we willing to repeat the mistakes of the past, prioritizing fear over compassion in our immigration policies?

Erosion of Public Trust

Moreover, a lack of reform risks further eroding public trust in government institutions. As harrowing stories like Mooney’s gain traction, public opinion could sharply shift against the administration, particularly among communities that have historically supported the Democratic Party (Goodwin & Jiménez, 2019). The narrative of inclusion and compassion that the current administration campaigned on could quickly transform into a facade if it fails to confront the inhumane conditions prevalent within detention centers (Dauvergne, 2008).

Historically, we can draw parallels to the aftermath of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The initial support for such policies eroded quickly once the reality of the situation became apparent, leading to a long-lasting scar on public trust in government actions. Similarly, the current administration’s inaction on detention conditions could lead to a similar backlash, as individuals and communities begin to question the integrity of the government’s promises.

Internationally, the U.S. risks further tarnishing its reputation as a champion of human rights; countries observing the treatment of detainees may view the U.S. as hypocritical, undermining its ability to advocate for human rights abroad—especially concerning nations whose citizens face deportation or detention (Elias et al., 2021). In a world increasingly focused on human rights, this hypocrisy could serve as a rallying cry for critics, further isolating the U.S. on the global stage.

Failing to act now may also embolden far-right factions seeking to perpetuate a narrative of exclusion rooted in xenophobia. As these voices grow louder, immigration policies may shift further toward draconian measures that jeopardize the lives of countless individuals (Tyler, 2006). The consequences of inaction could set a precedent for more egregious violations of human rights in the future, complicating any potential reforms (McCrudden, 2008). Are we willing to revisit our darkest chapters of history, or will we choose to advocate for a more just and humane approach moving forward?

What If a Widespread Public Outcry Emerges?

Should Jasmine Mooney’s story ignite a widespread public outcry, it could catalyze meaningful change in the U.S. immigration system. Public mobilization has historically served as a powerful agent for reform; when fueled by emotional resonance, it can pressure lawmakers into action (Abraham et al., 2022). Historical examples, such as the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, illustrate how sustained public protests led to significant legislative changes, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Just as those activists rallied to change the course of American history, today’s movements can harness the same spirit to inspire action in the realm of immigration reform.

Potential avenues for public mobilization include:

  • Mass protests
  • Social media campaigns
  • Grassroots movements

These efforts can amplify calls for accountability, compelling both the Biden administration and Congress to prioritize immigration reform (Katz, 2001). For instance, consider the impact of the Women’s March, which mobilized millions nationwide and significantly shifted the political landscape.

The media’s role is crucial in this potential scenario. A shift from sensationalized coverage to more compassionate narratives highlighting the lived experiences of detainees is vital. Such a transformation can foster broader public understanding of the immigrant plight, garnering greater support for policies prioritizing human rights. This shift holds particular importance given that many current abuses have occurred largely out of the public eye, often affecting those who do not fit a specific narrative of victimhood.

Increased public scrutiny could prompt the introduction of new legislation aimed at:

  • Dismantling the for-profit detention industry
  • Mandating humane treatment of all detainees (Hall & Taylor, 1996).

Legal challenges by advocacy groups could target the constitutionality of current detention practices, paving the way for court rulings affirming the rights of immigrants (Bredbenner & Smith, 1998). However, it is essential to recognize that public mobilization can yield mixed outcomes. It may provoke backlash from opposition groups, leading to intensified political polarization. This phenomenon prompts us to question: can the pursuit of justice in one realm inadvertently sow discord in another? As lawmakers may adopt more extreme measures in attempts to deter immigration (Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2014), the delicate balance between advocacy and backlash becomes ever more critical.

Strategic Reform Initiatives

Reforming the U.S. immigration system necessitates strategic coordination among government officials, advocacy groups, and the general public. For the Biden administration, the immediate priority should be a comprehensive reevaluation of current immigration policies through thorough assessments of conditions in detention facilities (Cho et al., 2013). Engaging with human rights organizations to rectify deficiencies similar to those illustrated by Mooney’s experience is crucial. Establishing a task force that includes impacted community members can facilitate a more inclusive dialogue about necessary reforms.

Congress must take proactive measures to draft and support legislation aimed at:

  • Curtailing the powers of private detention centers.
  • Increasing transparency in detention conditions.
  • Independent monitoring, establishing humane housing protocols for immigrants (Richmond, 2001).

Moreover, legislators need to prioritize pathways to legal residence and asylum, shifting away from punitive measures towards systemic solutions that promote justice and equity (Romero et al., 1996). The urgency of this reform echoes the historical plight of migrants during the Great Depression, when many were unjustly detained and deported despite their contributions to society. Just as public sentiment eventually swayed policymakers to adopt more humane practices, today’s legislators must heed the call for compassionate reform.

Advocacy groups must heighten their efforts to raise awareness and mobilize supporters by leveraging social media and engaging in public awareness campaigns. Forming coalitions with other human rights organizations to lobby for comprehensive immigration reform is essential (McCrudden, 2008; Churchwell et al., 2020). Legal challenges to unjust practices within the immigration system should also be prioritized, creating a multi-faceted approach to dismantling the legal foundations that permit such inhumane treatment.

Alongside these reform initiatives, consideration must be given to the role of everyday citizens. The public holds significant potential as a force for change, using activism to push for reforms and ensuring that their voices resonate in political discussions. Engaging in letter-writing campaigns, contacting representatives, and participating in local advocacy initiatives can create ripples of change, compelling legislators to acknowledge and act upon the pressing need for reform in the immigration landscape. Much like the grassroots movements that led to civil rights advancements, every effort counts in shaping a more just society.

The Importance of Intersectionality in Advocacy

When discussing immigration reform and the dehumanization of certain populations, it is essential to recognize the importance of intersectionality. Immigrants are not a monolithic group; they come from diverse backgrounds, and their experiences can differ dramatically based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender identity, and socioeconomic status (Cho et al., 2013).

For instance, Black and indigenous immigrants often face compounded discrimination, which can exacerbate their vulnerability within the immigration system. This scenario is reminiscent of historical injustices faced by different communities, such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, where racial prejudice intersected with wartime hysteria, leading to severe repercussions for those targeted. Similarly, by addressing intersectionality in immigration advocacy, stakeholders can develop more nuanced strategies that recognize the unique challenges faced by different groups. This recognition can also spur the implementation of policies that provide adequate support and protection for the most vulnerable and marginalized populations. Integrating an intersectional lens into reform efforts could help dismantle systemic racism and build a more equitable immigration system. How can we ensure that our advocacy efforts do not inadvertently overlook the complexities of individual experiences within these diverse groups?

The Role of Technology and Social Media

In the current digital age, technology serves as a powerful tool for amplifying the narratives of those impacted by immigration policies. Social media platforms allow individuals and organizations to share their stories, mobilize support, and connect with like-minded advocates across the globe. Leveraging these platforms can rapidly disseminate information, educate the public on the failures of the immigration system, and foster a sense of solidarity among advocates (Hall & Taylor, 1996). For instance, the #FamiliesBelongTogether campaign, which gained momentum on social media, mobilized thousands of individuals to protest family separations at the U.S.-Mexico border, showcasing the power of collective voices uniting around a common cause.

Furthermore, the use of technology can enhance transparency in detention facilities. Introducing digital monitoring systems and independent oversight can ensure that the treatment of detainees is subject to external review, holding institutions accountable for their actions. But how can we truly measure the effectiveness of these reforms? Creating online petitions, awareness campaigns, and virtual town hall meetings can galvanize support for reform and create a sense of urgency surrounding the need for change—transforming the passive act of scrolling through a feed into a powerful catalyst for action that echoes the grassroots movements of the past.

The Need for Comprehensive Reform

Comprehensive reform of the U.S. immigration system is not only necessary to address the current inhumane conditions but also to create a framework that prioritizes justice and equity moving forward. It’s vital to shift the narrative from one focused on punitive measures to one that emphasizes compassion, support for asylum seekers, and a clear pathway to legal residency.

Historically, reforming immigration policies has not only transformed individual lives but also the fabric of society. For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 dramatically reshaped U.S. demographics and contributed to economic growth, proving that well-structured immigration policies can yield significant societal benefits.

A holistic approach to immigration reform should include:

  • Changes to detention policies.
  • Investments in community resources that support immigrant integration.

Providing access to educational opportunities, healthcare, and legal resources can empower communities and foster a culture of acceptance rather than fear. Just as a strong foundation is essential for a resilient building, collaboration between government entities, advocacy groups, and local communities is necessary to establish the foundation for a more humane immigration system. Can we afford to ignore the lessons of the past, or will we choose to create a future that uplifts all members of our society?

Conclusion

Ultimately, Jasmine Mooney’s experience serves as a critical reminder of the systemic injustices embedded in U.S. immigration policy and the urgent need for reform. Much like the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, which stripped countless individuals of their rights based on fear and prejudice, today’s immigration policies can similarly dehumanize individuals based on their backgrounds (Hirabayashi, 2002). The future of immigrant rights hangs in the balance, and concerted action from all stakeholders is imperative to uphold the rights and dignity of every individual. The U.S. must not remain a place where dehumanization is tolerated under any regime; if we allow history to repeat itself, how can we claim to learn from it? The call for justice transcends borders and demands accountability from all those who wield power over the lives of the vulnerable.

References

  • Abraham, J., Reny, T., & O’Brien, R. (2022). Investing in the future of public mobilization: Social movements and social justice. Journal of Political Studies, 41(3), 345-362.
  • Bredbenner, C., & Smith, R. (1998). Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U. S. History. American Journal of Legal History, 42(4), 434–437.
  • Cho, S., Crenshaw, K., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis. Signs, 38(4), 785-810.
  • Churchwell, K. H., Elkind, M. S. V., Benjamin, R. M., Carson, A. P., Chang, E., & Khosla, R. (2020). Call to Action: Structural Racism as a Fundamental Driver of Health Disparities: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association. Circulation, 142(2), e142-e148.
  • Dauvergne, C. (2008). Making people illegal: what globalization means for migration and law. Choice Reviews Online.
  • Elias, A., Ben, J., Mansouri, F., & Paradies, Y. (2021). Racism and nationalism during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(6), 959-981.
  • Goodwin, A. P., & Jiménez, R. T. (2019). Literacy and Human Rights. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2), 123-139.
  • Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014). The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 332-351.
  • Katz, C. (2001). Vagabond Capitalism and the Necessity of Social Reproduction. Antipode, 33(2), 153-177.
  • McCrudden, C. (2008). Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights. European Journal of International Law, 19(4), 945-972.
  • McCubbins, A. R., & Ramirez, M. D. (2021). The effects of dehumanizing language on public opinion toward federal and “for-profit” immigrant detention. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 9(4), 1-22.
  • Richmond, A. H. (2001). Refugees and Racism in Canada. Refuge, 20(1), 7-14.
  • Romero, M., Anderson, M. L., & Collins, P. H. (1996). Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology. Teaching Sociology, 24(3), 294-305.
  • Swanson, K. (2019). Silent Killing: The Inhumanity of U.S. Immigration Detention. Journal of Latin American Geography, 18(1), 175-187.
  • Tyler, I. (2006). Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection in Contemporary Politics. Zed Books.
  • Whyte, D. (2009). Naked Labour: Putting Agamben to Work. Australian Feminist Law Journal, 31(1), 141-161.
← Prev Next →