Episode Overview

Title: The hidden history of US immigration detention
Podcast: History Extra
Date: January 14, 2026
Host: Eleanor Evans (for Immediate Media)
Guest: Brianna Knofel (author, The Migrants: An American History of Mass Incarceration)

This episode explores the century-long story of immigration detention in the United States. Guest historian Brianna Knofel discusses how current practices—often seen as uniquely modern—have deep historical roots. The conversation traces the evolution of detention policy, its entanglement with local economies, the lived experiences of detainees, and the parallels between immigration detention and broader systems of mass incarceration.

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Foundations of US Immigration Detention

• Early Restrictions: The Chinese Exclusion Act of the 1880s marked the first significant federal restriction on immigration, prompting the US to seek ways to enforce the law (02:19).
• Enforcement Dilemmas: Policies created logistical challenges: what does it mean to actually exclude or remove tens of thousands of people? Detention emerged as a primary solution.

Quote:

"Even though migrant detention is at an absolutely sort of unprecedented scale today, the US has been using incarceration as a tool of border control and a tool to facilitate deportations for basically as long as the US has had restrictive immigration law."
— Brianna Knofel (02:19)

2. Patchwork of Facilities and Economic Incentives

• Jails vs. Federal Centers: The system is fragmented. Migrants are housed in two main types: federally-run detention centers and local county jails, the latter often run by sheriffs reflecting local priorities (04:13).
• Private Prisons: Today, private prison companies control much of immigration detention, running both their own facilities and some local jails.
• Local Economic Boon: Rural communities saw detaining migrants as a lucrative opportunity, earning nightly fees for each detainee (07:09).

Quote:

"Many of these sheriffs say, yeah, absolutely… We’d love to put them in these jails... These communities are going to see migrants as a commodity, as a sort of way to bring federal money in."
— Brianna Knofel (10:04)

3. Community Complicity and Discomfort

• Vigilantism & Surveillance: Local residents, not just law enforcement, sometimes benefited by assisting in migrant surveillance (11:09).
• Moral Tension: From early on, there was community discomfort regarding profiting from incarceration, often couched in moral or religious terms.

Quote:

"People… are raising questions about, you know, is this ethical? Is this Christian? …Can we justify commoditizing human suffering?"
— Brianna Knofel (12:26)

4. Conditions Inside Detention

• Overcrowding & Disease: Small jails designed for a dozen people often held upwards of a hundred. Conditions were dire, likened to “warehousing people” (13:50).
• Legal Resistance: Detained Chinese migrants used habeas corpus to challenge their detention, which was initially effective as courts sided with them out of concern for citizens’ rights.

Quote:

"They were absolutely stunned… there are like a hundred Chinese migrants… in a jail that is built to hold 12 people. The conditions are awful."
— Brianna Knofel (14:32)

• Administrative vs. Criminal Law: Up until 1929, entering illegally wasn't a crime—detention was an administrative procedure, not a criminal act (17:37).

5. Criminalization and the Erosion of Due Process

• 1929 Law: Illegal entry was criminalized, partly as a concession to calls for Mexican migration quotas (24:49).
• Blurring Lines: Migrants came to be held on both administrative and criminal grounds—sometimes consecutively.

Quote:

"The sort of criminalization of migrants is not only done through law, but it is also done through… if you lock people up, it sort of normalizes the idea that they've done something to deserve being locked up."
— Brianna Knofel (27:47)

6. Enduring Uncertainty and Human Toll

• Agonizing Limbo: Detainees—especially in rural jails—faced profound uncertainty with little access to legal process or knowledge of when/if they would be deported (28:23).

Quote:

"There is so much uncertainty when people are in this space… it is a long, excruciating, tremendously unclear process."
— Brianna Knofel (30:10)

7. The Impact of Identity on Public Sympathy

• Changing Targets: As European immigrants (including women and children) began using old Chinese migration routes, local attitudes toward participation in detention contracts shifted (32:11).
• Selective Outrage: Communities were more likely to object to detaining women and children from Europe than to previous Chinese detainees.

8. World War II and the Japanese American Experience

• System Expansion & Repurposing: Wartime internment of Japanese Americans employed immigration detention expertise and expanded infrastructure. Post-war, these facilities were turned to new uses, such as mass deportation of Mexican workers (34:41).

Quote:

"It’s so poignant and devastating… the same physical space that had just held citizens who were unjustly detained in war can now be used… for mass deportations."
— Brianna Knofel (36:53)

9. Modern Detention – The Example of Krome

• Origins: Krome Detention Center in Florida—originally a missile site—was repurposed to detain Cuban and Haitian asylum seekers in the 1980s (37:55).
• Symbolism: Krome and similar centers symbolize the paradox of “administrative” imprisonment that closely resembles punitive incarceration (37:55).

Quote:

"It looks like a prison and it sounds like a prison… but also it's not a prison. That's the paradox at the heart of this."
— Brianna Knofel (39:11)

10. Policy Oscillation – Local Jails vs. Federal Centers

• Advantages & Drawbacks: The US oscillates between models: decentralized contracts with local jails provide flexibility, but bring headaches in negotiation and oversight; massive federally-run centers offer deterrence and more control, but invite scrutiny (40:38).
• Deterrence Strategy: Large centers are intended as deterrents—though this is largely ineffective at reducing migration (42:14).

11. Continuity, Change, and the Need for Systemic Reform

• Enduring Features: Much of the current immigration detention apparatus closely resembles its predecessors—financial incentives, decentralized enforcement, moral ambiguities, and the blurring of punitive and administrative justice (43:58, 44:38).

Quote:

"We cannot dismantle immigration detention without sort of dismantling the system of mass incarceration more broadly."
— Brianna Knofel (47:19)

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• "As long as the US has had restrictive immigration law, [it] has been using incarceration as a tool of border control…" — Brianna Knofel (02:19)
• "For many of these sheriffs, this was an incredible deal. These were not communities that had a lot of opportunity to get federal resources." — Brianna Knofel (09:46)
• "Can we justify commoditizing human suffering?" — Brianna Knofel (12:26)
• "The conditions are awful… warehoused, basically stuck in closets." — Brianna Knofel (14:32)
• "Deportation is not a punishment for a crime… but what it means in practice is that deportation is untethered from due process." — Brianna Knofel (17:37)
• "If you lock people up, it sort of normalizes the idea that they've done something to deserve being locked up." — Brianna Knofel (27:47)
• "The Immigration Service over the century has refined how to get locals to do the labor of border control." — Brianna Knofel (44:54)
• "We cannot dismantle immigration detention without dismantling the system of mass incarceration more broadly." — Brianna Knofel (47:19)

Key Segments & Timestamps

| Segment Topic | Timestamp | |:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------:| | What is US immigration detention and its historical roots? | 02:19 | | Structure: Jails, federal centers, and private prisons explained | 04:13 | | Early Chinese migration routes, local sheriffs, and economic incentives | 07:09 | | Communities' role and moral discomfort | 11:09 | | Conditions in early 20th-century detention | 13:50 | | Legal challenges, habeas corpus, and administrative law | 17:19 | | 1929 law criminalizing border crossing; its impact | 24:49 | | Uncertainty and liminality of detention experience | 28:23 | | Changing local attitudes when European women and children detained | 32:11 | | WWII Japanese American incarceration and expansion of detention capacity | 34:41 | | The evolution of modern federal detention centers (like Krome) | 37:55 | | Oscillation between local jails and federal detention centers | 40:38 | | Closing reflections: continuity, financial incentives, and need for broader reform | 44:38 |

Conclusion & Takeaways

• Structural Continuity: Modern US immigration detention is built on patterns set over a century ago; the financial incentives, local involvement, and blurred lines between punishment and administration persist.
• Impact on Detainees: Detainees’ experiences have consistently featured overcrowding, uncertainty, and deprivation of due process.
• Systemic Entanglement: The fate of immigration detention is closely bound with America’s broader systems of mass incarceration.
• Moral and Practical Questions: As long as localities profit from detention and as the definition of “criminality” shifts, reform remains challenging without addressing the entire carceral state.

Recommended Reading:
The Migrants: An American History of Mass Incarceration by Brianna Knofel