Mental Illness and Immigration

         “Sir, I not – cannot go home. If I die, I die America”  Xiu Ping Jiang, a Chinese immigrant, uttered these words at her first deportation hearing in Pompano Beach, Florida, after a judge threatened to deport her to her native country, from which she fled in 1995.  Jiang, who suffers from an undisclosed, severe mental illness, has endured the rigors of the American immigration system, which has seen vast changes in the past nine years. After a year and a half, Jiang was eventually released on bail to the care of her sister, yet her ordeal was far from over. Her prolonged detainment had only exacerbated her mental illness, making her even more unfit to stand trial and defend herself against a legal system that has systematically ignored her condition. Jiang was eventually granted asylum by a Florida judge, perhaps  due to the press coverage and public outrage regarding the case.

Yet, her struggle illustrates an immigration system marred by ignorance, neglect and utter disregard for the legal considerations of the mentally ill. By not providing counsel to the mentally ill facing deportation, by not providing clear criteria and tests for competency, and by not maintaining due process in cases involving the mentally ill, the American legal system has caused the already convoluted web of immigration law to become even more entangled by contradictory case law and statutes – thus underscoring the immense need for a consistent, comprehensive legal framework that addresses the multifaceted issues surrounding the immigration and deportation of the mentally ill. 

         Using the precedent set in Dusky v. United States, the criminal standard for adjudicative competence could be used in deportation cases. This does not necessitate that all criminal due process rights be extended to those facing deportation, as, although the Supreme Court recognized deportation’s substantial effect on an individual in Bridges v. Wixon, deportation trials are nevertheless vastly different from criminal trials, and should be treated as such. Yet, in the realm of competency, a clear standard of mental fitness should be implemented in deportation cases in order to not only protect the due process of an individual, but also to facilitate the efficiency of the justice system.

Once an individual is determined to be incompetent or mentally ill, should they have the right to treatment? In Bowring v. Godwin the 4^th District Court of the United States determined that, under the 8^th Amendment, prisoners had explicit rights to treatment for mental conditions while imprisoned. Many United States officials and agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau would cite the overwhelming costs that providing treatment to all detainees that are potentially facing deportation. However, as can be seen in the iconic case of Ms. Jiang, the cost of not medicating a detainee – thus not only impeding the legal process but also endangering his or her life – is far more costly than any financial burden the state may incur.

            Resolving the issues currently plaguing the treatment of the mentally ill in immigration cases is undeniably a daunting task. However, its importance in forming a fair approach to mental illness in deportation proceedings is undeniable. Simply because a mentally ill individual is faced with deportation is not reason enough to deny them the rights of due process, competency hearings, and counsel that have been granted to United States citizens grappling with mental illness. Perhaps, with legal reform in the areas of counsel, competency, and treatment, cases such as that of Ms. Jiang can be avoided.