ICE’s full-body restraints in deportations spark concerns of inhumane treatment

(UUNITED STATES) Immigration and Customs Enforcement is facing renewed scrutiny over its use of full-body restraints during deportations, with rights groups, medical experts, and former detainees describing practices that they say rise to inhumane treatment and risk breaking U.S. constitutional and international human rights standards.

At the center of the debate is a device called “The WRAP,” a black-and-yellow restraint system originally marketed for short-term crisis control. As of October 2025, advocates report that ICE has used The WRAP for hours at a time during transport and on deportation flights, sometimes in ways that appear to go beyond manufacturer guidance and internal agency policy.

Doctors warn that long periods in full-body restraints can cause breathing problems, nerve injury, and trauma. Human rights lawyers point to prohibitions on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under international law, and to due process and humane treatment protections under the U.S. Constitution. ICE says it aims to keep officers, detainees, and flight crews safe during transfers and removals. But oversight has been widely criticized as weak, and calls for independent investigations have grown louder amid reports of detainee protests, hunger strikes, and legal complaints tied to restraint use.

Rights advocates say the issue extends beyond any single incident. They argue that patterns are emerging: deportees held in The WRAP far longer than a moment of crisis, people moved across airport tarmacs while bound at 30–40 degrees rather than a safer upright position, and added layers of restraint—such as standard five-point shackles combined with the full-body device—that increase the risk of injuries. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, these claims have pushed the debate from local complaints to a systemic question about how the United States 🇺🇸 conducts removals and whether current checks on the use of force are adequate.

While The WRAP first drew public attention in connection with removals to Africa, groups tracking removals say the device has also appeared on domestic ICE Air flights. That reported spread has heightened concern that practices once seen as rare are becoming routine. Advocates argue that when a tool designed for brief de-escalation becomes standard for long transport, the line between safety and punishment can blur, exposing ICE and the federal government to legal risk—especially when detainees report pain, numbness, and breathing problems during or after restraint.

Device and reported practices

The WRAP is designed to immobilize a person’s legs in an extended position while their hands are cuffed behind the back, with straps that limit movement. The stated goal is to prevent self-harm or aggression during a short crisis.

However, medical groups and rights monitors report that on deportation days the device is often used for hours, including during transfer to airports and while boarding or occupying flights. Accounts describe people being seated at steep angles that restrict the diaphragm—30–40 degrees rather than the recommended 90-degree upright angle—and being unable to shift weight or signal distress once strapped in.

Key reported practices of concern:
– Use of The WRAP for hours (not minutes) during transfers and flights.
– Seating at steep angles (30–40°) that can restrict breathing instead of 90° upright seating.
– Stacking restraints: combining The WRAP with standard five-point shackles.
– Transport through multiple legs (tarmac, boarding, in-flight) without medical re-evaluation.

Doctors warn that dual restraint and prolonged immobilization increase the risk of nerve compression injuries, reduced circulation, respiratory distress, and trauma—especially when combined with stress, high tarmac temperatures, or cramped aircraft seating. Some detainees report being kept in The WRAP through takeoff and long flight legs, compounding risks and making it difficult to drink, use the bathroom, or communicate with escorts.

Human rights groups say that even if marketed as a safer alternative to older techniques (for example, hog-tying), The WRAP’s real-world use must adhere to strict, medically informed limits. They argue extended application, improper angles, and stacking restraints turn a crisis tool into a punitive transport measure.

Medical, legal, and oversight concerns

Medical experts outline the major health risks associated with prolonged full-body restraint:
– Restricted breathing and limited diaphragm expansion.
– Reduced blood flow and circulation problems.
– Numbness or nerve damage from sustained compression.
– Panic, trauma, and stress-related physiological responses.

Doctors reference research on positional asphyxia and restraint-related deaths in other settings as cautionary examples, noting that even if cases differ, the physiological risk patterns are consistent.

Legal and oversight issues:
– International human rights law bans torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, which can include excessive or punitive restraint.
– U.S. constitutional protections, including the Fifth Amendment, require humane treatment and prohibit excessive force in government custody.
– ICE has policies addressing use of force, restraint, and medical care, but critics say internal oversight is often inadequate.

The Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties accepts complaints and can review alleged abuses; further information is available on the official DHS site at Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Advocacy groups—such as Physicians for Human Rights and the Center for Victims of Torture—have urged ICE to end routine use of full-body restraints during deportation transport, calling it risky and unnecessary in many cases. They recommend alternatives:
– De-escalation training for officers.
– Mental health support and pre-removal assessments.
– Case-by-case medical evaluations and continuous monitoring.

Critics stress that without transparent logs, body-camera footage, medical evaluations, and independent audits, misuse can be hidden. They call for real-time oversight and faster complaint processes, particularly when removals are imminent.

Advocacy, policy pressure, and human impact

Since 2024, reports of hunger strikes, protests, and legal complaints have increased according to rights groups. Detainees describe the fear of seeing The WRAP on the morning of a flight—even without any record of violence. Families sometimes learn only afterward that relatives had bruises, numb limbs, or anxiety that persisted post-flight.

Common human-impact scenario described by advocates:
1. A person with no history of violence is scheduled for removal after months in detention.
2. On departure day, standard shackles are applied for transport to the tarmac.
3. The WRAP is used at the gate or before boarding, securing hands, legs, and torso in a semi-reclined position.
4. Hours pass between transfers and waiting; access to water or medical attention is limited.
5. After arrival, the person experiences lingering numbness or shortness of breath, with little documentation to prove here-and-now harm.

These stories drive policy proposals and legislative pressure. Suggested reforms include:
– Independent medical checks before and after any use of full-body restraints.
– Written seat-angle standards (e.g., 90° upright) and enforcement mechanisms.
– Banning stacked restraints except with clear, documented, individualized reasons.
– Flight-by-flight reporting of restraint use with anonymized public data.

Legal risk and documentation:
– Courts could impose damages or injunctive relief if they find excessive force or deliberate indifference to medical needs.
– Lawyers urge detailed record-keeping: dates, times, presence of The WRAP, seat angle, length of restraint, requests for water or medical aid, and after-effects (numbness, breathing problems).

Policy proposals under consideration often focus on narrow, specific rules:
– No full-body restraints during transport except when a licensed medical or mental health professional deems it necessary for a short period.
– No mixed restraint stacking.
– Seat angles fixed at an upright 90 degrees with continuous checks.
– Limits on total restraint time measured in minutes, not hours.
– Mandatory video recording during application, transport, and removal with independent review within 24–48 hours.

Other suggested measures to reduce reliance on The WRAP:
– Better pre-removal mental health screening (PTSD, severe anxiety).
– Clinician presence or consultation for at-risk individuals.
– Expanded communication and de-escalation training, including language access.

Operational and cultural challenges

The administration’s enforcement posture—expanded expedited removal and faster transfers—affects how decisions are made. Critics argue speed reduces time for assessment, communication, and de-escalation; supporters say timely removals ease detention and court burdens.

Culture and enforcement:
– Even strong rules depend on institutional culture: officers should feel supported when using less restrictive measures.
– Supervisors must enforce limits and protect whistleblowers to prevent paper rules from being ignored in practice.
– Standardizing practice across regional hubs could reduce uneven application and make audits meaningful.

Advocates propose stronger real-time oversight options:
– Independent observers on some ICE Air flights.
– Third-party audits of restraint logs.
– Fast-track complaint review for alleged misuse occurring before removal.

Investigations that combine medical and human rights expertise are considered especially valuable because they can weigh complex questions about respiratory risk, trauma, and proportional force. Findings could lead to targeted reforms—training, equipment changes, or bans on stacking restraints.

Values, accountability, and next steps

The debate over The WRAP is framed as a broader test of values: how to balance necessary control with humane treatment. The stakes are practical and moral: for people in custody, the difference is whether they leave in pain or in peace.

Points of broad agreement and pressure:
– Need for stronger, real-time oversight and transparent reporting.
– Requirement that restraints be necessary, proportionate, and medically justified.
– Support for limits designed to prevent respiratory harm and long-term injuries.

As of October 2025, ICE’s use of force in deportations—especially the use of full-body restraints like The WRAP—remains under active review by watchdogs, lawmakers, and medical and human rights organizations. Whether change comes from internal policy updates, court orders, or legislation, the coming months will shape whether restraints return to brief crisis use or remain embedded in long transport operations.

For the people strapped into these devices, the consequences are immediate and personal: the difference between dignity and harm, and between being treated as a person or as a package to be moved.