The full-body restraint device known as the WRAP has become a harrowing part of deportations for some immigrants.
The Associated Press identified multiple examples of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers utilizing this device during deportation flights.
What is the WRAP?
First introduced in the late 1990s, the WRAP was designed to serve as a humane alternative to the practice of hog-tying. It was intended to prevent physical harm to both the detainee and officers during transportation by avoiding issues such as positional asphyxia. According to manufacturer Safe Restraints Inc., the device is now utilized by over 1,800 departments and facilities nationwide.
Charles Hammond, CEO of Safe Restraints Inc., disclosed that a modified version of the WRAP was made specifically for ICE, allowing for usage during flights and extended bus journeys.
ICE has spent over $268,000 on WRAP devices since late 2015, with a significant portion of that funding occurring during the Trump administration. Internal records reveal grave concerns raised regarding the device's safety and ethical implications, but the agency has not provided clarity on their usage.
Findings from the Investigation
Five individuals reported they were constrained using the WRAP for hours during deportation flights dating back to 2020. Witnesses from four countries corroborated similar claims for at least seven other individuals this year.
The AP's investigation has connected the use of the WRAP with serious injuries and deaths, with federal lawsuits emerging that challenge its application as punitive or torturous in nature. Critics highlight the potential for ICE to misuse these restraints, often applied without just cause.
Official Responses
ICE asserts that using restraints on detainees during deportation is a standard practice essential for ensuring safety. However, specific guidelines surrounding the use of the WRAP have not been publicly explained.
Despite ongoing criticism and calls for increased accountability, ICE continues to defend the use of the WRAP as justified, while advocates demand greater oversight and a review of current practices.
