Asylum Seekers: Ankle Monitors And Surveillance

The use of ankle monitors on asylum seekers has been a controversial topic in the United States. While some argue that ankle monitors are a necessary measure to ensure the appearance of asylum seekers at immigration court proceedings, others criticize their use as a form of discrimination and invasion of privacy. In recent years, there has been a shift from physical detention to the use of alternatives to detention (ATDs) programs, such as ankle monitors, for asylum seekers who are not considered a flight or safety risk. This has raised concerns about the negative impact on the physical and mental well-being of asylum seekers, as well as the potential infringement of their civil liberties and privacy rights.

The Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP)

ISAP is managed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and involves a combination of nightly curfews, electronic monitoring devices, and intensive case management sessions. Electronic monitoring devices include GPS ankle bracelets, voice recognition software for telephone-based reporting, and telephonic reporting through landlines and cellphones. Other methods of monitoring include unannounced visits to participants' homes and the use of GPS tracking.

ISAP has been criticized for its lack of oversight, with many participants going unmonitored and those who violate the program's rules not being rearrested by ICE agents. There are also concerns about the financial burden placed on asylum seekers, who are forced to pay for the ankle monitors and related fees themselves. In addition, the stigma associated with wearing an ankle monitor can limit employment opportunities and cause feelings of shame and imprisonment.

While ISAP has been promoted as a more humane alternative to detention, allowing immigrants to live with their families and continue working while their deportation proceedings are pending, the use of ankle monitors as a form of electronic monitoring has been controversial.

The financial burden of ankle monitors

Ankle monitors are increasingly being used as alternatives to detention for asylum seekers. While they are promoted as a more humane and cost-effective option, the financial burden of these devices falls on the asylum seekers themselves. This unexpected cost can amount to thousands of dollars, adding to the already high costs of applying for refugee status.

In the United States, asylum seekers are required to pay for their ankle monitors, which can cost hundreds of dollars per month. For example, an individual on Instagram shared that they had to pay $400 per month for their ankle monitor, amounting to $3200 over eight months. Others may have to pay a daily charge of up to $30, which could add up to $900 per month. These fees are in addition to any legal fees and application costs associated with seeking asylum.

The high cost of ankle monitors can also lead to debt and further legal consequences. If individuals cannot afford to pay for the device, they may face additional fees, interest, or even jail time. This creates a cycle of financial burden and legal entanglement, further marginalizing those seeking asylum.

The financial implications of ankle monitors are a significant concern for asylum seekers. The costs can be unexpected and burdensome, impacting their economic stability and ability to support themselves and their families. This adds to the challenges and stressors they face while navigating the asylum process.

The negative health impacts of ankle monitors

In the United States, asylum seekers are required to wear electronic ankle monitors. This has sparked protests from groups such as the St. Louis Immigrant Activism Coalition, who argue that the practice is discriminatory, oppressive, and a barrier to fair legal representation. While some view ankle monitors as a more humane alternative to detention, there are several negative health impacts associated with their use.

Firstly, ankle monitors have been reported to cause physical health issues, including inflammation, severe cramps, bleeding, sores, and numbness around the foot and leg. In one case, a woman experienced electric shocks, bruising, skin eruptions, hair loss, headaches, chest pain, and difficulty breathing after being fitted with an ankle monitor. The physical restrictions imposed by ankle monitors, such as the need for frequent charging, can also impact an individual's ability to care for their basic needs and those of their dependents.

The psychological effects of wearing an ankle monitor can be detrimental. Individuals have expressed feelings of being imprisoned and stigmatized, with recent immigrants comparing the monitors to "shackles." The social stigma associated with ankle monitors can lead to shame, embarrassment, and a sense of being criminalized, even among those with no criminal record. This can negatively impact mental health and well-being.

Ankle monitors also present challenges for employment. The stigma and negative perceptions associated with the devices can hinder employment opportunities and job retention. Additionally, ICE rules related to electronic monitoring programs, such as unannounced home visits, nightly curfews, and geographical limits, can further impede an individual's ability to maintain steady employment.

Furthermore, ankle monitors raise privacy concerns. There is a lack of transparency around how the data collected through electronic monitoring is used, stored, and accessed by government entities. This lack of clarity can contribute to feelings of anxiety and uncertainty, impacting the mental health and sense of security of those wearing the monitors.

In conclusion, while ankle monitors may be presented as a more humane alternative to detention for asylum seekers, the negative health impacts outlined above highlight the need for careful consideration of their use. The physical, psychological, social, and privacy consequences of ankle monitors can have a detrimental effect on the well-being of individuals seeking asylum.

The social stigma of ankle monitors

The use of ankle monitors as an alternative to detention for asylum seekers has been a controversial issue, with protests and activism denouncing the practice as oppressive and discriminatory. While proponents argue that ankle monitors are a more humane and cost-effective solution, the social stigma associated with these devices cannot be ignored.

Ankle monitors, also known as "grilletes" or "shackles" by recent immigrants from Central American countries, carry a significant social stigma. Their design has remained largely unchanged for decades, with bulkiness and difficulty in concealment that make them conspicuous and invite prejudice. The public perception of ankle monitor wearers as dangerous criminals is a cause for concern, as it can lead to social isolation and discriminatory treatment.

The stigma of wearing an ankle monitor can have a detrimental impact on the social and economic well-being of asylum seekers. They may face judgement, disrespect, and ostracization by those around them, leading to curtailed activities and a limited ability to form strong social bonds within their communities. This stigma can also hinder employment opportunities, as employers may associate ankle monitors with criminality, even when the wearer has no criminal record. The restrictions and rules imposed by ankle monitors, such as unannounced home visits, curfews, and geographical limits, further hinder asylum seekers' ability to maintain steady jobs.

The financial burden of ankle monitors, which can cost thousands of dollars, falls on the asylum seekers themselves. This adds to the economic challenges they face, especially when coupled with the stigma and restricted employment opportunities. The psychological effects of wearing an ankle monitor, including feelings of imprisonment and shame, cannot be overlooked.

The social stigma associated with ankle monitors underscores the need for a holistic re-evaluation of their design and use. While they may be presented as a more humane alternative to detention, the negative perceptions and consequences that come with wearing these devices must be addressed to ensure the fair treatment of asylum seekers.

The privacy concerns of ankle monitors

Ankle monitors, or electronic monitoring devices, have been touted as a more humane alternative to detention for asylum seekers. However, there are valid concerns about the privacy implications of these devices, which have been described as a form of "e-carceration".

Ankle monitors are equipped with GPS capabilities, allowing authorities to track the wearer's location and movement in real time. This data is captured, analysed, and stored, often for months, and may be shared with law enforcement agencies and courts. This raises concerns about the privacy of the individual wearing the monitor, as well as that of their family and friends, whose locations and movements may also be tracked if they spend time with the monitored individual.

Little information has been made available to the public about how the data collected by ankle monitors is used, stored, and shared by the government. This lack of transparency is concerning, as it leaves open the possibility of data misuse or over-sharing. While proponents of ankle monitors argue that they are an effective way to ensure supervision by immigration authorities, the impact on the privacy and freedom of movement of those wearing them cannot be ignored.

The use of two-way communication devices further exacerbates privacy concerns. These devices, which are equipped with speakers and microphones, have been criticised for their potential to be used for eavesdropping by law enforcement. While officials claim they are not using the devices for this purpose, there have been reports of individuals receiving unsolicited calls. This capability also allows law enforcement to listen in on conversations at any time, including potentially privileged conversations with attorneys, which would violate attorney-client confidentiality and the constitutional right to counsel.

In addition, the social stigma associated with ankle monitors can hinder employment opportunities for immigrants, even those with work authorisation. The identification of ankle monitors with criminality makes it difficult for monitored individuals to be hired or retained, further limiting their privacy and freedom.

Frequently asked questions