Katerina Fernandez, Associate Member, Immigration and Human Rights Law Review
I. Introduction
In recent years, the intersection of immigration enforcement and digital surveillance has raised critical legal and ethical questions.[1] U.S. government agencies’ use of commercial spyware, particularly in immigration contexts, has drawn national and international scrutiny for its potential to infringe upon constitutional protections, including due process rights.[2] The Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is one of the agencies at the forefront of this trend, using various digital surveillance tools under the “Alternatives to Detention” program.[3] This program includes tracking methods, such as ankle monitors and mobile apps, that not only monitor physical locations but also potentially grant ICE intrusive access to personal data, impacting the autonomy and privacy of asylum seekers and other immigrants.[4]
The Biden administration’s stance on commercial spyware use reflects broader national security and human rights concerns, as embodied in Executive Order 14093, which went into effect March 27, 2023.[5] This Order prohibits government agencies from deploying spyware that poses risks to security or facilitates human rights abuses.[6] Nevertheless, ICE’s recent $2 million contract with Paragon Solutions, a spyware vendor, exemplifies the challenges in reconciling concerns with immigration enforcement priorities.[7] Amidst rising criticisms from human rights advocates and ongoing White House reviews of such contracts, this issue highlights the need for a legal framework to balance national security interests with the fundamental rights of non-citizens within the United States.
This blog examines the constitutional and ethical challenges posed by ICE’s use of digital surveillance on immigrants, exploring its impact on due process rights, privacy, and personal autonomy. Beginning with an overview of due process protections under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, it discusses how digital monitoring practices restrict immigrants’ independence and mental well-being, often functioning as “digital cages.” Next, this blog analyzes ICE’s recent $2 million spyware contract with Paragon Solutions, evaluating it in part under Executive Order 14093. It critiques current administrative actions as insufficient responses to the risks posed by unregulated surveillance in immigration enforcement. Ultimately, the article proposes legislative reforms that align immigration enforcement with constitutional protections, ensuring due process and safeguarding human dignity.
II. Background
ICE’s increasing reliance on digital surveillance to monitor migrants has profound implications for constitutional due process rights, particularly those afforded under the Fifth Amendment.[8] Traditionally understood to protect against arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property, due process rights are now challenged by the advent of sophisticated digital monitoring tools.[9] ICE’s digital surveillance practices—ranging from ankle monitors and mobile applications to advanced spyware—represent a new frontier in immigration enforcement, raising critical legal and ethical questions regarding privacy, autonomy, and psychological well-being for migrants.[10]
A. Constitutional Protections
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a cornerstone of due process, stating, “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”[11] Notably, it uses the term “person” rather than “citizen,” a distinction with profound implications for noncitizens, including immigrants within U.S. borders.[12] This language establishes a foundation for applying constitutional protections to all individuals on U.S. soil, regardless of citizenship status.[13] Over the years, federal and state courts have interpreted this provision to mean that noncitizens, including those without lawful status, are entitled to certain procedural safeguards when facing actions that could impact their life, liberty, or property.[14]
In immigration cases, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires that immigrants receive fair treatment during deportation proceedings and other adjudications impacting their status.[15] Thus, the U.S. government must follow established legal procedures before depriving an immigrant of liberty (e.g., through detention) or property (e.g., assets seized due to immigration status).[16] In Reno v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Fifth Amendment entitles noncitizens to due process in deportation proceedings.[17] However, noncitizens in immigration proceedings are not entitled to government-appointed counsel, as deportation is a civil rather than criminal matter.[18] This gap often leaves immigrants vulnerable in complex proceedings without adequate legal representation.[19] For immigrants, the application of the Fifth Amendment usually varies depending on their legal situation.[20] The level of procedural protection can differ based on location, duration of time spent in the United States, and the type of proceeding.[21] For example, immigrants within the U.S. interior typically have more robust due process rights compared to those apprehended near the border, where “expedited removal” procedures allow for rapid deportation without a formal hearing under certain conditions.[22]
Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring that government actions respect privacy rights by requiring probable cause and, in most cases, a warrant for such activities.[23] However, its protections are not uniformly extended to noncitizens, especially those outside U.S. borders or without lawful status.[24] Immigrants, particularly when undocumented, often find themselves subjected to surveillance and data collection practices that would likely be deemed unconstitutional if applied to U.S. citizens.[25] For example, warrantless searches at border crossings, expansive monitoring of immigrant communities, and the use of invasive technology to track noncitizens raise significant privacy concerns.[26] These practices operate in a legal gray area where constitutional protections are diminished, highlighting the disparity in how Fourth Amendment rights are applied based on citizenship or immigration status.
B. The Use of Technology
ICE’s tools, such as Paragon Solutions’ Graphite software, complicate the effective exercise of noncitizens’ rights as due process concerns extend to how data is collected and used in immigration enforcement.[27] The Graphite software, reportedly capable of bypassing encryption and accessing private data, expands ICE’s surveillance capabilities.[28] ICE’s use of third-party data to track and target immigrants without judicial oversight raises questions about whether such practices adhere to Fifth Amendment requirements for fair and transparent procedures. When data is gathered without a warrant, immigrants may be subjected to enforcement actions without an opportunity to contest the methods used to surveil and track their movements.[29]
The scope of ICE’s surveillance has expanded significantly through partnerships with private contractors, such as BI Inc. and Paragon Solutions.[30] These companies supply technologies that allow for real-time tracking and remote monitoring.[31] For example, BI Inc.’s SmartLINK app enables ICE to continuously monitor location data and collect sensitive biometric information from migrants awaiting adjudication of asylum claims, including facial images and voice prints.[32] This data collection often continues for extended periods, even after migrants are released from detention, fostering a state of constant surveillance.[33] Furthermore, ICE’s recent $2 million contract with Paragon Solutions to deploy advanced spyware tools to immigration enforcement officers has sparked additional scrutiny.[34]
C. Implications of Surveillance
Recognizing the potential for abuse, the Biden administration implemented an executive order restricting commercial spyware that poses risks to human rights.[35] Executive Order 14093 states:
The United States has fundamental national security and foreign policy interests in (1) ensuring that technology is developed, deployed, and governed in accordance with universal human rights; the rule of law; and appropriate legal authorization, safeguards, and oversight, such that it supports, and does not undermine, democracy, civil rights and civil liberties, and public safety… To advance these interests and promote responsible use of commercial spyware, the United States must establish robust protections and procedures to ensure that any United States Government use of commercial spyware… ensures that the United States Government does not contribute, directly or indirectly, to the proliferation of commercial spyware that has been misused by foreign governments or facilitate such misuse.[36]
This requires federal agencies to assess and limit spyware usage that could endanger privacy and due process protections.[37] Despite these safeguards, Human Rights Watch and other advocacy groups argue that such technology threatens migrants’ due process rights by enforcing “digital cages,” which inhibit their autonomy and re-traumatize those fleeing persecution.[38] ICE’s current surveillance practices highlight a critical tension between national security interests and the constitutional rights of immigrants. The growing utilization of spyware and data broker networks[39] to track noncitizens raises privacy concerns and threatens U.S. constitutional law’s foundational due process protections.
III. Discussion
The intersection of ICE’s surveillance practices and constitutional protections raises significant questions about due process for noncitizens and the ethical limits of government power. As immigration enforcement increasingly incorporates advanced spyware and data acquisition methods, the legal and ethical concerns surrounding immigrant rights become even more pressing. This section explores the implications of ICE’s surveillance on due process under the law, examining how the agency’s reliance on private contractors and data brokers creates challenges for safeguarding immigrants’ rights.
A. Implications of Data Surveillance on Due Process Rights
ICE’s use of commercial spyware and partnerships with data brokers directly challenges the scope of due process protections afforded to immigrants. By obtaining data without judicial oversight, ICE exploits the “data broker loophole,”[40] allowing the agency to acquire sensitive information about noncitizens’ locations, communications, and social connections without a warrant.[41] The data broker loophole refers to the gap in legal protections that allows data brokers to collect, buy, sell, and trade large amounts of personal information about individuals with minimal oversight or regulation.[42] This practice circumvents the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, subjecting noncitizens to surveillance practices that would otherwise likely be deemed unconstitutional.[43] This use of the data broker loophole raises due process concerns because it denies immigrants a chance to contest the data acquisition methods and potentially violates their privacy rights.[44]
The use of surveillance also impacts the fairness of immigration proceedings.[45] With extensive data collection through apps like SmartLINK and technologies provided by Paragon Solutions, ICE gains access to vast troves of biometric and geolocation data.[46] This level of monitoring affects immigrants’ autonomy and ability to live without constant surveillance. For immigrants subjected to such surveillance, especially those in ICE’s Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), the continuous data collection and lack of clarity around data use create barriers to the full exercise of due process rights.[47] By using cell-site simulators without warrants and issuing sweeping administrative subpoenas without judicial oversight, ICE not only violates departmental and federal privacy requirements but also creates a precedent for unchecked government surveillance.[48] Without transparency or oversight, immigrants have little recourse to challenge the accuracy of this data or its use in enforcement actions.
B. The Risk of Discriminatory Surveillance
While the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments extend due process rights to all individuals within U.S. jurisdiction, ICE’s use of advanced surveillance technologies risks undermining these guarantees, particularly for immigrant communities.[49] The deployment of digital tools, such as the SmartLINK app and Graphite spyware, reveals a troubling pattern of disproportionate targeting and surveillance that often mirrors broader societal biases against marginalized groups.[50]
ICE’s surveillance practices disproportionately affect immigrant communities, exacerbating existing inequalities.[51] The SmartLINK app and other monitoring technologies gather extensive data, including geolocation, biometrics, and personal connections, often without adequate safeguards or oversight.[52] Further, these tools are not applied uniformly, instead targeting communities of color and individuals from specific national or ethnic backgrounds.[53] Such surveillance reinforces systemic biases, burdening already vulnerable populations.[54] The data broker loophole further compounds this issue as it disproportionately impacts immigrants, enabling the agency to amass detailed profiles of individuals and communities without their knowledge or consent.[55] These methods create an environment of pervasive monitoring of immigrants that undermines the foundational principle of equal protection under the law.[56]
Technologies like Paragon’s spyware grant ICE unprecedented power over the lives of immigrants.[57] Human Rights Watch highlighted the risks of granting such tools to an agency with a history of controversial practices, warning that they could be used to target activists, journalists, and lawyers in addition to migrants.[58] Despite these concerns, mechanisms to hold ICE accountable for discriminatory surveillance remain insufficient. Although Executive Order 14093 represents a step toward regulating the use of commercial spyware, it falls short of addressing the systemic issues inherent in these practices.[59] Without robust oversight, the risk of discriminatory application and abuse remains high.
C. Challenges in Enforcing Due Process Standards in Immigration Surveillance
Integrating advanced surveillance technologies into immigration enforcement presents significant challenges to upholding due process protections.[60] The Fifth Amendment ensures fair treatment under the law for all individuals in the United States, but ICE’s use of digital monitoring practices frequently undermines this constitutional protection.[61] A major concern is ICE’s capacity to leverage data broker networks and private contractors by carrying out enforcement actions without requiring court approval, effectively bypassing judicial oversight.[62] ICE’s surveillance tools facilitate extensive data collection without clear guidelines on usage or retention, prompting concerns about fairness and transparency in immigration enforcement.[63]
Without legal representation, many immigrants lack the knowledge and resources to contest the validity of the collected data or the methods used to acquire it.[64] This imbalance frequently exposes immigrants to enforcement actions based on incomplete or inaccurate data, compromising the integrity of the legal process.[65] For instance, actions may be driven by geolocation data or social connections inferred through surveillance, leaving immigrants with limited ability to challenge the accuracy or relevance of this information.[66] Even in non-expedited removal procedures, surveillance technologies can skew enforcement actions in ways that are difficult to challenge.[67] For example, data collected through apps like SmartLINK can monitor movements and establish patterns that ICE may interpret as evidence of wrongdoing.[68]
The use of invasive surveillance further erodes procedural safeguards. Immigrants are often unaware of the scope of data being collected or how it may be used against them in deportation proceedings.[69] These practices not only undermine due process but also create a chilling effect on immigrants’ willingness to engage in social or professional networks, fearing that any connection could be used as evidence in enforcement actions.[70] This dynamic perpetuates a system in which immigrants are disproportionately disadvantaged in defending themselves.[71]
Enforcing due process standards in immigration surveillance highlights a critical tension between national security goals and the constitutional rights of noncitizens.[72] Comprehensive reforms are necessary to ensure transparency, accountability, and respect for due process in immigration enforcement.[73] These reforms must include stricter regulations on the use of surveillance technologies, robust oversight mechanisms, and greater access to legal representation for immigrants facing enforcement actions.[74] Addressing these systemic challenges is essential to upholding the United States’ commitment to justice and equality under the law.
D. Recommendations and Future Considerations
A comprehensive approach must address the problems surrounding ICE’s surveillance practices and ensure constitutional alignment. Strengthening legal frameworks is a critical first step, including closing the data broker loophole through legislation like the Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act, which requires warrants for government data purchases.[75] Building on Executive Order 14093, federal guidelines should mandate transparency in government contracts, regular audits, and judicial oversight of surveillance technologies. Additionally, these guidelines should enhance privacy protections for noncitizens, particularly regarding biometric and geolocation data.[76]
Oversight and accountability are equally essential to protecting immigrants’ due process rights. The U.S. government must create an independent oversight body to monitor surveillance use in immigration enforcement, assess human rights impacts, investigate misuse, and issue public reports.[77] An ideal oversight body for monitoring surveillance in immigration enforcement should include legal and technology experts, civil rights advocates, community representatives, ethics scholars, and independent auditors. It must operate independently, have the authority to access data, enforce reforms, and maintain transparency by publishing public reports to ensure accountability and protect human rights. Strengthening judicial review mechanisms is vital to allow immigrants to contest data collection and ensure fair treatment through expanded access to legal representation.[78] This includes increasing funding for legal aid organizations, ensuring the availability of pro bono services, and implementing policies that guarantee immigrants facing deportation have access to counsel regardless of financial status.[79] Expanded access also entails providing specialized training for attorneys on the intersection of immigration law and surveillance issues, ensuring that legal advocates are equipped to address the complex challenges posed by data-driven enforcement practices.[80] By empowering immigrants with skilled legal representation, the system fosters greater equity and upholds due process rights by empowering immigrants with skilled legal representation.
Additionally, international human rights standards should guide ongoing reform. The United States can align immigration enforcement with frameworks like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and collaborate globally to regulate spyware, setting ethical standards for surveillance technologies.[81] Humane alternatives, such as community-based case management programs and increased funding for legal aid, can ensure compliance with immigration proceedings while respecting individual dignity.[82]
Finally, given the rapid evolution of surveillance technologies, ongoing assessment of these protective measures is necessary.[83] Policymakers must address risks like AI-driven biases, develop global agreements to standardize data security, and promote public awareness to advocate for reform and government accountability. These recommendations align immigration enforcement with the constitutional values of due process, privacy, and equality under the law by strengthening legal protections, enhancing oversight, and prioritizing humane alternatives.
IV. Conclusion
The growing reliance on digital surveillance technologies in immigration enforcement raises significant constitutional and ethical concerns, particularly regarding due process, privacy, and personal autonomy for immigrants. This blog examined how ICE’s deployment of advanced tools, such as Paragon Solutions’ spyware and BI Inc.’s SmartLINK app, undermines legal protections and creates and furthers systemic challenges. Additionally, it highlighted the ethical implications of surveillance practices that disproportionately impact immigrant communities, reinforce societal biases, and function as “digital cages.”
The analysis underscored the urgent need for a legal framework to reconcile immigration enforcement with constitutional protections. By examining existing policies, such as Executive Order 14093, and critiquing their limitations, this discussion revealed the necessity of stronger oversight, transparency, and judicial accountability. The recommendations, from closing the data broker loophole to adopting humane alternatives, offer a pathway to align immigration enforcement practices with foundational principles of justice and equality under the law. Implementing these recommendations will ensure that immigration enforcement respects the dignity and rights of all individuals. As surveillance technologies evolve, proactive legislative and ethical measures will be critical to upholding the constitutional values that define the United States.
[1] Samuel Okon Ekpeowoh, The Intersection of Immigration Law and Human Rights: Current Issues and Future Trends, Int’l J. of Rsch. & Innovation in Soc. Sci. (Nov. 4, 2024), https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/the-intersection-of-immigration-law-and-human-rights-current-issues-and-future-trends/ [https://perma.cc/S5FZ-6E8F].
[2] Zach Campbell, US Immigration Agency Contract with Spyware Company Poses Risk to Rights, Hum. Rts. Watch (Oct. 17, 2024, 3:00 AM), https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/10/17/us-immigration-agency-contract-spyware-company-poses-risk-rights [https://perma.cc/9A4K-86CH].
[3] Joel Brown, Digital Cages: How ICE Uses Digital Surveillance to Track Migrants, B.U. (Jan. 26, 2024), https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/digital-cages-surveillance-to-track-migrants/# [https://perma.cc/EFQ9-GWX3].
[4] Id.
[5] Exec. Order No. 14093, 3 CFR, 2023 Comp., p. 361.
[6] Id.
[7] Vas Panagiotopoulos, ICE Signs $2 Million Contract With Spyware Maker Paragon Solutions, Wired (Oct. 1, 2024, 2:15 PM), https://www.wired.com/story/ice-paragon-solutions-contract/ [https://perma.cc/9X74-7EFK].
[8] Audrey Knutson, Saving Face; The Unconstitutional Use of Facial Recognition on Undocumented Immigrants and Solutions in IP, 10 IP Theory (2021).
[9] Id.
[10] Brown, supra note 3.
[11] U.S. Const. amend. V.
[12] Gretchen Frazee, What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?, PBS News (June 25, 2018, 5:08 PM), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have [https://perma.cc/J6JS-YQU7].
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Alan Fuchsberg, What Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have?, Jacob Fuchsberg L. Firm (Jan. 29, 2024), https://www.fuchsberg.com/blog/illegal-immigrants-rights#:~:text=Undocumented%20immigrants%20in%20the%20United%20States%20are%20entitled%20to%20the,basic%20necessities%20and%20educational%20opportunities [https://perma.cc/8T2C-FU8H].
[17] Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, (1993); Id.
[18] Fuchsberg, supra note 16.
[19] Ingrid Eagly & Steven Shafer, Access to Counsel in Immigration Court, Am. Immigr. Council (Sept. 28, 2016), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/access-counsel-immigration-court [https://perma.cc/59UK-WVEC].
[20] Kirby Fullerton, What is “Due Process” for Immigrants?, CarmanFullerton (Aug. 14, 2024), https://carmanfullerton.com/what-is-due-process-immigrants/ [https://perma.cc/649C-CPP4].
[21] Katie Brenner & Charlie Savage, Due Process for Undocumented Immigrants, Explained, New York Times, (June 25, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/us/politics/due-process-undocumented-immigrants.html# [https://perma.cc/QDC7-X54Z].
[22] Id. Expedited removal proceedings are a fast-track deportation process for noncitizens caught near U.S. borders who lack proper documentation or commit fraud, allowing immigration officers to deport them without a formal hearing. The process aims to deter unauthorized crossings, reduce immigration court backlogs, and streamline enforcement. However, it has faced criticism for limiting due process and potentially leading to erroneous removals, especially for asylum seekers. National Immigrant Justice Center, Too Fast For Fairness: “Expedited Removal” And The Family Expedited Removal Management Program, (Jan. 11, 2024), https://immigrantjustice.org/research-items/explainer-too-fast-fairness-expedited-removal-and-family-expedited-removal [https://perma.cc/Z7FL-N3EV].
[23] U.S. Const. amend. IV.
[24] Fuchsberg, supra note 16.
[25] Asad Asad, The Everyday Surveillance of Undocumented Immigrants, Am. Socio. Ass’n, https://www.asanet.org/footnotes-article/the-everyday-surveillance-of-undocumented-immigrants/ [https://perma.cc/3XZN-U8Q5] (last visited Jan. 2, 2025).
[26] Victor G. Febres & Karen F. Ruiz, The US Government Buys Data for Surveillance. For Immigrants, It’s a Matter of Survival, Tech Pol’y Press (Apr. 18, 2024), https://www.techpolicy.press/the-us-government-buys-data-for-surveillance-for-immigrants-its-a-matter-of-survival/ [https://perma.cc/BHX7-NGZB].
[27] Panagiotopoulos, supra note 7.
[28] Campbell, supra note 2.
[29] Nicol Turner Lee & Caitlin Chin-Rothmann, Police surveillance and facial recognition: Why data privacy is imperative for communities of color, Brookings (Apr. 12, 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/police-surveillance-and-facial-recognition-why-data-privacy-is-an-imperative-for-communities-of-color/ [https://perma.cc/K3D9-PW5T].
[30] Panagiotopoulos, supra note 7.
[31] Tonya Riley, How a private company helps ICE track migrants’ every move, CYBERSCOOP (Sept. 26, 2023), https://cyberscoop.com/ice-bi-smartlink/ [https://perma.cc/HDG2-X84C].
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[34] Vas Panagiotopoulos, ICE’s $2 Million Contract With a Spyware Vendor Is Under White House Review, Wired (Oct. 21, 2024, 3:03 PM) https://www.wired.com/story/ice-paragon-contract-white-house-review/ [https://perma.cc/HZ58-7EEE].
[35] Exec. Order No. 14093, 3 CFR, 2023 Comp., p. 361.
[36] Id.
[37] Id.
[38] Campbell, supra note 2; Brown, supra note 3.
[39] A data broker is a company or entity that collects, buys, and sells personal information about individuals, often without their direct consent or knowledge. They compile data from various sources like social media, online shopping, public records, and mobile apps. Then, they analyze and sell this information to other businesses, typically for marketing, advertising, or risk assessment purposes. Jasdev Dhaliwal, What is a Data Broker?, McAfee (Sept. 20, 2024), https://www.mcafee.com/blogs/tips-tricks/what-is-a-data-broker/ [https://perma.cc/5H2V-8GV2].
[40] Emile Ayoub & Elizabeth Goitein, Closing the Data Broker Loophole, Brennan Ctr. for Just. (Feb. 13, 2024), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/closing-data-broker-loophole [https://perma.cc/9S5W-KGBB].
[41] Febres & Ruiz, supra note 26.
[42] Ayoub & Goitein, supra note 40.
[43] Patrick Toomey & Sara Robinson, Mass Surveillance Is Dangerous for American Communities: Reforming the Section 702 Spying Regime, ABA (June 3, 2024), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/technology-and-the-law/mass-surveillance-is-dangerous-for-american-communities/?login [https://perma.cc/T6KB-T7N9].
[44] Priya Morley, AI at the Border: Racialized Impacts and Implications, Just Security (June 28, 2024), https://www.justsecurity.org/97172/ai-at-the-border/ [https://perma.cc/URL7-LMPN].
[45] Witness, Juan’s Story Part 2: Using Video as Evidence in Immigration Proceedings, https://blog.witness.org/2019/07/juans-story-part-2/ [https://perma.cc/TLG3-HRG4] (last visited Nov. 20, 2024).
[46] Panagiotopoulos, supra note 7.
[47] Id. The ISAP is part of ICE’s Alternatives to Detention initiative. It combines case management and technology, such as GPS tracking, telephonic reporting, and smartphone apps, to monitor non-detained individuals or family heads in immigration proceedings. ISAP aims to ensure compliance with immigration requirements, such as attending court hearings, while mitigating flight risks for participants. Department of Homeland Security, Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, (Apr. 11, 2022), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/ICE%20-%20Intensive%20Supervision%20Appearance%20Program%2C%20FYs%202017%20-%202020.pdf [https://perma.cc/D3NF-2MK8].
[48] Kiran Wattamwar, ICE’s Privacy Impact Assessment on Surveillance Technologies is an Exercise in Disregarding Reality, Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr. (Oct. 5, 2023), https://epic.org/ices-privacy-impact-assessment-on-surveillance-technologies-is-an-exercise-in-disregarding-reality/ [https://perma.cc/AAJ5-3MZP].
[49] Id.
[50] Tom Hanson et al., ICE’s SmartLINK app tracks migrants by the thousands. Does it work?, CBS News (June 13, 2024), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-ices-smartlink-app-work/ [https://perma.cc/ACX3-X9F7].
[51] Campbell, supra note 2.
[52] Riley, supra note 31.
[53] Id.
[54] Id.
[55] Wattamwar, supra note 48.
[56] Id.
[57] Panagiotopoulos, supra note 7.
[58] Campbell, supra note 2.
[59] Errel Peli, Clamping Down on Commercial Spyware, The Regul. Rev. (May 16, 2023), https://www.theregreview.org/2023/05/16/peli-clamping-down-on-commercial-spyware/ [https://perma.cc/U5FV-USKE].
[60] Wattamwar, supra note 48.
[61] Id.
[62] Id.
[63] Panagiotopoulos, supra note 7; Hanson et al., supra note 50.
[64] Judge Robert Katzmann, The Legal Profession and the Unmet Needs of the Immigrant Poor, The Orison S. Marden Lecture of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Feb. 28, 2007).
[65] Id.
[66] Campbell, supra note 2.
[67] Wattamwar, supra note 48.
[68] Hanson et al., supra note 50.
[69] Wattamwar, supra note 48.
[70] Id.
[71] Id.
[72] Id.
[73] Id.
[74] Id.
[75] Emile Ayoub & Elizabeth Goitein, Closing the Data Broker Loophole, Brennan Ctr. for Just. (Feb. 13, 2024), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/closing-data-broker-loophole [https://perma.cc/9S5W-KGBB].
[76] Id.
[77] Emily Tucker & Hinako Sugiyama, Does ICE Data Surveillance Violate Human Rights Law? The Answer is Yes, and It’s Not Even Close, Tech Pol’y Press (Nov. 14, 2023), https://www.techpolicy.press/does-ice-data-surveillance-violate-human-rights-law-the-answer-is-yes-and-its-not-even-close/ [https://perma.cc/B4EL-WSG8].
[78] Angela Banks, The Need for Facts in Immigration Policymaking, Jotwell (June 6, 2018), https://lex.jotwell.com/the-need-for-facts-in-immigration-policymaking/ [https://perma.cc/857G-C2Y3].
[79] American Immigration Council, Beyond a Border Solution: How to Build a Humanitarian Protection System that Won’t Break, (May 3, 2023), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/02.23_border_whitepaper_v6.pdf [https://perma.cc/Q8J7-ZCZT].
[80] Id.
[81] The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Statement to UN Human Rights Committee on U.S. Compliance with the ICCPR, (Sept. 12, 2023), https://civilrights.org/resource/statement-to-un-human-rights-committee-on-u-s-compliance-with-the-iccpr/ [https://perma.cc/9ALP-7UQ2]. The ICCPR is a key human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations in 1966 and entered into force in 1976. It commits its signatory states to respect and protect civil and political rights, including the rights to life, freedom of speech, religion, assembly, fair trial, and protection from torture and arbitrary detention. United Nations, Background to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Optional Protocols, https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/ccpr/background-international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights-and-optional-protocols [https://perma.cc/9GFQ-PPTZ] (last visited Nov. 20, 2024).
[82] John Holmes, Dismantling Detention: International Alternatives to Detaining Immigrants, Hum. Rts. Watch (Nov. 3, 2021), https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/11/03/dismantling-detention/international-alternatives-detaining-immigrants [https://perma.cc/H2AL-Y44S].
[83] Monique Madan, The Future of Border Patrol: AI Is Always Watching, The Markup (Mar. 22, 2024), https://themarkup.org/news/2024/03/22/the-future-of-border-patrol-ai-is-always-watching [https://perma.cc/4VD4-2DEG].
