A/75/590
have opposed these border technologies because “they would exacerbate racial and
ethnic inequality in policing and immigration enforcement, as well as curbing
freedom of expression and the right to privacy”. 150 Other submissions also highlighted
the operation of other autonomous surveillance AI infrastructure at the United States Mexico border, including drones designed to detect human presence and alert border
enforcement officials. 151 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discriminatio n
has expressed its concern to the General Assembly over the “ever more precarious
journeys being taken by asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in search of safety
and dignity resulting in unnecessary deaths and suffering”. 152,153 As mentioned above,
the current evidence is that so-called “smart” border technology forces these ever
more precarious journeys, with a disproportionate impact on certain national origin,
ethnic and racial groups.
49. In the United States, the communications of detained immigrants and their
families and friends are surveilled. 154 The business model of the corporate providers
of the technology is one whereby detained immigrants and their families “get
convenience in the form of calls, video chats, voice mail messages, photo sharing an d
text messaging, while its real clients,” immigration officials, get user data. 155 The
web-based surveillance software, promoted as free to government officials with every
installation, “includes call-pattern analysis, relationship analysis and tools for data
visualization”. 156
50. Yet another facet of immigration surveillance involves social media screening.
As of April 2019, the United States Department of State requires visa applicants to
disclose their social media account information in the past five ye ars from the time
of application. 157 In September 2019, the Department of Homeland Security proposed
to compel such disclosures from non-citizens already present and even residing in the
country who apply for immigration benefits, including naturalization, permanent
residence and asylum. 158 As the submission highlights, this expansive approach to
social media screening is especially troubling because of United States immigration
enforcement’s demonstrated track record of utilizing social media information in a
manner that disproportionately harms members of minority racial, ethnic and
religious groups. 159 The Department of Homeland Security has already falsely
accused black and Latinx youth of gang membership by exploiting social media
connections, resulting in their detention, deportation, and/or denial of immigration
benefits. 160 United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a constituent
agency of the Department of Homeland Security, frequently combs social media to
support gang membership allegations. 161 In one case, the Department of Homeland
Security evidenced its allegation with a Facebook photo of the immigrant youth
wearing a Chicago Bulls hat. The immigration court denied him bond and rejected
both his application for asylum and for permanent residen ce, deporting him to a
__________________
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
20-14872
Submission by Minority Rights Group International.
Submission by Mijente and submission by Iván Chaar-López.
Submission by Franciscans International.
See A/72/18.
Submission by Mijente, citing www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/magazine/ice-surveillancedeportation.html.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Submission by Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program.
Ibid., citing www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-09-04/pdf/2019-19021.pdf.
Submission by Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program.
Ibid., citing www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/deport_by_any_means_nec -20180521.pdf.
Submission by Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program.
21/25