Allegations that deportation officers used a full-body restraint suit on already shackled men during a 16-hour flight to West Africa have renewed debate over immigration enforcement tactics. The incident, described by a witness who said officers denied the men access to their attorney, highlights growing questions about a device known as the WRAP. The Associated Press has identified multiple deportation cases where the black-and-yellow restraint was used, raising concerns from advocates and medical experts.
Allegations of Excessive Restraint
The account describes a scene that began with a request for legal counsel and ended with full-body immobilization. The use of the WRAP on long-haul flights has become a flashpoint for civil rights groups who argue it can amount to excessive force, especially when people are already shackled.
“When they asked to speak to their attorney, he said, the officers refused and straitjacketed the already-shackled men in full-body restraint suits called the WRAP, then loaded them onto a plane for the 16-hour-flight to West Africa.”
Immigration lawyers say the right to consult counsel should not vanish during transport, even when removal is imminent. They argue that tight restraints can heighten the risk of injury, panic, or respiratory distress during lengthy flights.
What Is the WRAP
The WRAP is a full-body restraint device designed to limit movement of the arms and legs. In some deportations, it has acquired grim nicknames.
“Referred to as ‘the burrito’ or ‘the bag,’ the WRAP has become a harrowing part of deportations for some immigrants.”
According to its manufacturer, the device is used by law enforcement to manage combative individuals and to reduce struggling. Supporters say it can prevent injuries to both officers and detainees when someone is actively resisting. Critics counter that its use on long flights, particularly on people already restrained, may be unnecessary and risky.
Patterns and Oversight
Reports indicate that use of the WRAP in deportations is not isolated.
“The AP identified multiple examples of ICE using the black-and-yellow full-body restraint device, the WRAP, in deportations.”
Agency guidance generally calls for restraints when there is a safety risk, and for methods to be proportionate to the situation. Civil liberties groups argue that independent review is needed to determine whether cases meet that standard. Medical groups have warned that prolonged restraint can strain breathing and circulation, especially over many hours in a seated position.
Competing Views on Safety and Rights
Advocates for migrants say the device can be traumatizing and may violate humane treatment standards during removal. They want clear criteria for when full-body restraints are permitted and mandatory medical checks before and during flights. They also seek stronger protections for access to counsel.
Officials and some security experts argue that officers must manage unpredictable behavior in confined aircraft cabins. They say restraints can prevent in-flight incidents that could endanger passengers and crew. The question is how to balance safety with dignity and legal rights during transport.
What We Know and What We Don’t
Key issues remain unresolved:
- How often the WRAP is used on deportation flights.
- What specific behaviors trigger its use when handcuffs or leg irons are already applied.
- What medical screening and monitoring occur on long flights.
- How detainees can raise complaints after removal.
Public reporting has filled some gaps, but comprehensive data from the agency is limited. Without full transparency, outside experts say it is hard to gauge whether restraint decisions meet policy and medical best practices.
Potential Policy Responses
Legal advocates are calling for audits of transport decisions and detailed reporting on restraint usage. They want time-stamped documentation, body camera footage where available, and after-action reviews by independent monitors. Some also propose a ban on full-body restraints for flights longer than a set duration unless a physician approves and monitors the case.
Security officials warn that blanket limits could reduce flexibility in emergencies. They argue that officers need tools for rare but volatile situations. A compromise could include tighter thresholds, clearer documentation, and real-time medical oversight during lengthy flights.
The accounts of a 16-hour transatlantic flight using the WRAP have sparked fresh scrutiny of removal practices. Reports of multiple similar cases suggest a pattern that merits closer review. The central questions are proportionality, health risks, and access to counsel. Policymakers may seek clearer standards, better data, and stronger oversight. Watch for potential audits, updated transport rules, and new reporting requirements that could define what restraint looks like on future deportation flights.
