POST 6: PROFITING OFF PAIN (Embedded/Incorporated Post)

When discussing U.S. immigration policy, the debate generally focuses on border security, deportation, and illegal immigration. However, there is another, less visible dimension that unfolds from these issues: the economy that has developed around immigration detention. Behind the political decisions regarding residency within U.S. territory lies a complex structure of public institutions and private companies that profit from the incarceration and surveillance of migrants.

The immigration detention industry in the United States is a convergence of politics, economics, and criminal justice, as the system not only responds to an administrative need of the State but has also generated a market in which private companies participate in the operation of jails, detention centers, and related services. In this way, irregular migration ceases to be merely a social or legal phenomenon and becomes an activity that also generates significant financial resources.

PROFITING OFF PAIN

According to the American University Washington College of Law report (2026), the expansion of immigration detention is linked to a historical process of criminalizing migration, especially through laws such as Sections 1325 and 1326 of the U.S. immigration code, which establish criminal penalties for unauthorized entry or reentry into the country. These laws transformed irregular migration from a primarily administrative matter to a criminal one, allowing thousands of migrants to be prosecuted and sent to incarceration systems.

This change had significant economic consequences: the more people are prosecuted, the greater the need for detention infrastructure, prison staff, surveillance services, and contracts with private companies.

From Border to Market: The Expansion of Immigration Detention

Immigration detention in the United States began as a tool of state control, but over time it has evolved into a system where private actors play an increasingly important role. Privatization has allowed private prison companies to manage facilities where immigrants are detained while awaiting court proceedings or deportation decisions.

American University Washington College of Law highlights the role of private prison and detention center companies, such as GEO Group and CoreCivic, which have received contracts related to immigration detention. These companies generate revenue through agreements with government agencies responsible for immigration enforcement, creating a unique economic model where the detention of individuals represents a source of income for private operators. In other words, a larger detained population increases the demand for prison services, leading to detention ceasing to be solely a control measure and becoming an economic activity.

In 2022, for example, private detention companies earned hundreds of millions of dollars from contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), demonstrating the financial weight this industry has within the U.S. immigration system.

Criminalization as an Economic Driver

One of the most important aspects of this analysis is that the detention industry cannot be understood separately from the laws that allow it to operate. The criminalization of migration creates the necessary conditions for increased demand for detention centers.

Before the implementation of these policies, many immigration violations were handled primarily through administrative procedures. However, by classifying certain immigration acts as federal crimes, the state opened the door to criminal prosecution and incarceration.

This model has a dual economic impact. On the one hand, it increases public spending on the judicial system, law enforcement, and prisons. On the other hand, it generates economic opportunities for private companies operating in this sector.

The problem arises when economic incentives conflict with humanitarian objectives. If a company earns higher revenues while holding a larger number of detainees, concerns arise that detention could become a practice driven not only by security or public administration concerns but also by economic gain.

The Invisible Costs: Families, Communities, and Human Rights

While the detention industry generates revenue for certain economic actors, it also produces social costs that are often less visible. The analysis explains that the application of criminal immigration laws can lead to family separation, difficulties in accessing immigration protection, and long-term consequences for those prosecuted.

When a migrant is sent to prison while facing criminal immigration proceedings, their children may be placed in the custody of state institutions or child protection systems. This generates indirect economic impacts because families lose income, their need for social assistance increases, and community networks are weakened.

Furthermore, a criminal conviction can affect the future possibility of obtaining immigration benefits, such as asylum or other forms of regularization. This means that a decision made at a specific moment can have economic and social effects for years.

From a broader perspective, immigration detention raises an important question: What is the true cost of a system based on incarceration? Although there are economic benefits for certain business sectors, the costs often fall on migrant families, local communities, and the public budget.

An Industry Sustained by Political Decisions

The immigration detention industry demonstrates how public policies can create entire markets. Laws determine who can be detained, governments allocate resources, and companies participate in providing services.

This does not mean that the existence of private companies is the sole cause of the problem. The central point is that when a policy generates economic opportunities, incentives can arise to maintain or expand that policy.

The U.S. case illustrates a complex relationship between the state and the private sector. The government defines the rules of the immigration system, but companies can profit from its implementation. Therefore, the debate on migration should not be limited solely to how many people are detained, but should also ask who profits from this process.

When Migration Becomes a Business

The immigration detention industry in the United States reveals a little-discussed reality: border control also has an economic dimension. The criminalization of migration has allowed for the expansion of a system where detention generates contracts, jobs, and income for certain sectors.

However, this model raises significant ethical and political questions. When deprivation of liberty becomes a profitable activity, there is a risk that economic incentives will influence decisions that should be guided primarily by legal, humanitarian, and social principles.

The analysis by American University Washington College of Law reveals that immigration detention is not only a tool of foreign policy or domestic security, but also an industry that moves millions of dollars. Therefore, understanding its economic effects is essential to analyzing how the United States manages migration and what interests lie behind its border policies.

Reference

 American University Washington College of Law. (2026). Profiting off Pain: Privatized Detention, Mass Surveillance and the  Drive for Immigrant Prosecutions. 

POST 5 - Embedded/Incorporated Post: The Illusion of National Security: Military-Grade Surveillance and Containment Tactics in Civilian Border Zones

The contemporary evolution of immigration control in the United States has transformed border spaces -historically civilian areas for transit and customs-into low-intensity militarized surveillance zones. At the center of this metamorphosis is the U.S. Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC), a special operations component whose doctrines and deployments have severely eroded International Humanitarian Law (IHL) safeguards and international policing norms. 

This article explores how the application of military-grade tactics and technologies in civilian border zones creates critical legal gaps that strip vulnerable populations of their fundamental rights. We used the investigation of Dr. Byrne:

EXPORTING VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL POLICING NORMS: THE US BORDER PATROL’S “BORTAC” SPECIAL OPERATIONS UNIT PROMOTES VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT REFORM

1. The Root of the Legal Gap: From Riot Response to Paramilitary Force 

Originally founded in 1984 as a volunteer-based reactionary unit tasked with responding to riots in detention facilities, BORTAC experienced a massive doctrinal expansion following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and its integration into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the unit evolved into a “paramilitary force” operating in a hazy gray area “between a police force and military” (Byrne, 2023)

The legal gap emerges when agents trained under a combat paradigm—receiving advanced instruction in air operations, tactical combat casualty care, precision marksmanship, and helicopter rope suspension techniques—are deployed to manage civilian migration flows, asylum seekers, and minors. As highlighted by specialized literature and the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) guidelines, the war-fighting objective of a military is so "antithetical" to the police duty to serve the individual that their missions "contaminate" each other when they overlap. In practice, this shifts border enforcement into a low-intensity theater of operations where migrants are treated as a tactical threat rather than subjects of rights. 

2. Violations of the Principles of Necessity and Proportionality 

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) "International Rules and Standards of Policing," all law enforcement actions must be governed by four fundamental principles, including legality, necessity, and proportionality. BORTAC’s containment tactics systematically breach these parameters: 

• The Principle of Necessity: This principle mandates that law enforcement operations must "not affect or restrict human rights more than is necessary". Deploying special operations units armed with weapons of war to police civilian transit zones imposes an unnecessary restriction on the human rights of protected groups. 

• The Principle of Proportionality: This requires that law enforcement conduct must not "affect human rights in a way that is disproportionate to the aim" (Byrne, 2023). BORTAC´s history includes heavily armed, military-style raids and the deployment of toxic fumes or tear gas in domestic settings where children were known to be present - such as the high-profile seizure of young Elián Gonzáles in 2000. This demonstrates a severe disconnect between the civil objective of enforcing custody or inmigration policy and the military-style force utilized.

3. Border Externalization: International Zones of Legal Exception 

One of the most complex legal gaps is generated through border externalization. BORTAC has projected U.S. migration policy far beyond its sovereign territory, training local police and military units in approximately 30 countries, including Guatemala and Honduras.

By effectively "pushing out the US border" into Central American countries, the U.S. normalizes its exclusionary policies over populations that have no democratic input into them, while creating severe accountability gaps. Under BORTAC’s instruction, local forces set up documentation checkpoints and roadblocks to arbitrarily intercept migrants. These actions violate domestic and international norms, including the Central American Free Mobility Agreement (CA-4), which grants passport-free transit rights between signatory nations. Because BORTAC finances, advises, and trains these paramilitary forces, this outsourcing attempts to insulate Washington from legal liability under international law for violations of the principle of non-refoulement (non-return) and the right to seek asylum.. 

4. The Deficit of Transparency and Accountability

The final major legal vacuum is institutional. BORTAC’s operational design breeds opacity. A stark example occurred during domestic deployments in Portland, Oregon, in 2020, where masked federal agents abducted and arrested protesters using unmarked vehicles and uniforms completely stripped of identifying insignia.

Legal analysts and editorial bodies have pointed out that the complaint system within the U.S. Border Patrol is largely "ornamental" and "carries no real weight," allowing BORTAC operatives to act with "impunity". Without independent civilian oversight, visible badges, or public transparency regarding the costs and scope of its tactical mandates, the unit operates entirely outside the boundaries expected of a democratic police force.

Conclusions and Proposals for Reform

The application of militarized national security frameworks to civilian border zones has dismantled international humanitarian safeguards in favor of territorial exclusion through violent force. To mitigate state liability under international law and protect human dignity, the following structural reforms are urgently required:

1. Cease Training of Corrupt Forces: BORTAC must immediately end all financial, advisory, and training support to foreign national security forces that demonstrate a flagrant disregard for human rights obligations.

2. Organizational Separation of Duties: In line with democratic policing principles, BORTAC must undergo structural restructuring to separate military-style units (focused on combating violent organized crime and arms/drug trafficking) from units or agencies tasked with regulating migration and addressing the humanitarian needs of displaced populations.

3. Active Transparency Mechanisms: Ensure that all agents are individually identifiable during operations (via unit insignias and badge numbers) and subject the internal complaint framework to rigorous, independent civilian oversight.

Reference 

Byrne, M. (2023). Exporting violations of international policing norms: The US Border Patrol's "BORTAC" special operations unit promotes violations of international norms and requires significant reform. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 40(3), 452-490.

POST 4: Lucrative Borders: The Business of Immigration Detention in the United States

 

Lucrative Borders: The Business of Immigration Detention in the United States

Since the tragic events of September 11, US immigration policy has undergone a profound transformation, increasingly linked to the logic of national security. The American discourse of “border control” and “internal protection” has consolidated a veritable detention industry, both state-run and private, whose economic impact obscures legal principles. It not only erodes individual rights but also reshapes the country's real economy, creating clearly defined winners and losers.

Mass Detention and National Security

International instruments such as International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) establish clear limits regarding the humane treatment of individuals: the prohibition of cruel treatment, access to due process, and special protection for refugees and minors. In theory, immigration detention should be exceptional, proportionate, and subject to review by impartial tribunals. However, in practice, the central problem lies in the fact that the logic of economic profitability has begun to prevail over these regulations, especially since the expansion of the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) network of detention centers, which have numerous complaints demonstrating conditions incompatible with these standards: cases of overcrowding, medical neglect, inadequate food, prolonged isolation, and excessive use of physical restraints. Thus, national security ceases to be solely a mechanism for state protection and also becomes an economic driver for certain private and political actors.

What is the “detention industry”?

The term “detention industry” is not figurative, as it refers to a network of institutions, contracts, and companies that profit from the deprivation of liberty. In the United States, the immigration detention system rests on three pillars:

• The State (ICE, DHS, and local governments).

• Private prison companies (CoreCivic, GEO Group, among others).

• Service networks (food, health, transportation, logistics).

For several years, the number of people in immigration detention has grown exponentially. To house this population, ICE has increased its detention capacity, not only managing its own facilities but also contracting with private prisons and local governments, often in small towns where a detention center can become the primary employer.

Money Behind Bars

One of the most controversial aspects of this industry is the enormous amount of economic resources it mobilizes annually. ICE allocates billions of dollars to the maintenance of detention centers, migrant transportation, electronic monitoring, and deportation operations. Various budget analyses estimate that funding specifically allocated to immigration detention currently exceeds $3.9 billion annually in operating expenses.

This massive flow of money has turned immigration detention into a highly lucrative market for private corporations such as GEO Group and CoreCivic, companies that manage a large portion of the centers used by ICE, reporting revenues exceeding $2.6 billion in 2025 (GEO Group), driven primarily by federal immigration contracts.

This model generates a clear conflict of interest: companies have incentives to maximize the detained population and minimize health and safety costs, while the local governments where these centers are located depend on the jobs and tax revenue generated by detention. As a result, many communities develop an economic dependence on the expansion of the immigration detention system.

Who wins and who loses?

On the one hand, for private prison companies, immigration detention is a well-established market niche. Contracts with ICE guarantee them stable income, with minimum occupancy guarantees that ensure cells are always full, even if the flow of migrants decreases. Furthermore, bids for services such as food, medicine, and internal stores are fiercely contested, strengthening supply chains that are particularly advantageous for large contractors.

To a lesser extent, some rural regions end up benefiting because the opening of a detention center generates direct employment (guards, administrative staff, service personnel) and tax revenue. For these local governments, detention becomes an economic benefit, supporting institutions such as hospitals, schools, and municipal services. However, this economic dependence can become risky if immigration policies change in the future.

On the other hand, the main victims are the migrants themselves and their families, especially in “mixed-status” households (where some members are citizens and others are not), as they often face prolonged separation, loss of income, and serious psychological harm. Many children are left in situations of emotional and economic vulnerability when one or both parents are detained or deported, leading to family instability and difficulties accessing education, housing, and healthcare.

Likewise, U.S. productive sectors also suffer significant consequences, since a large part of the workforce is made up of undocumented migrants, who participate in essential activities such as agriculture, construction, food processing, cleaning, and domestic services. Mass raids and deportations cause labor shortages, reduced productivity, and increased labor costs, particularly in agricultural states like California, Texas, and Florida.

Forced Labor and Economic Exploitation

Beyond simple “detention,” the U.S. system has incorporated forms of forced labor or extremely low-wage labor within prisons. Programs like the PIECP (Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program) allow private companies to hire incarcerated individuals for very low wages, with deductions that can reach up to 80% of their salary. These individuals build infrastructure, produce goods, or provide services for private companies while still incarcerated.

From the perspective of international law, this resembles forms of economic exploitation prohibited by norms against forced labor and required by decent work standards. But in practice, the model is presented as an “employment opportunity” for incarcerated individuals, when in reality it perpetuates a supply chain that benefits from cheap and highly disciplined labor.

National Security vs. International Principles

The US Administration insists that mass detention and the tightening of border control policies are necessary to protect national security. However, comparative policy studies and human rights analyses indicate that this logic may be more political than technical: it often translates into a militarization of the border and a commodification of deprivation of liberty, rather than a real improvement in public safety.

From the perspective of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL), three problems stand out:

• Disproportionality: the response (thousands of cells, private centers, mass deportations) is usually disproportionate to the risk posed by most migrants.

• Lack of necessity: non-carceral alternatives exist (community-based control, electronic monitoring, support programs) that are less costly and less harmful to human rights.

• Conflicts of interest: when the local economy depends on detention, political decisions are tainted by economic interests, and the discussion on human rights takes a back seat.

An Unsustainable Model: Economically and Ethically

From the perspective of international humanitarian law, the U.S. immigration detention system demonstrates how the category of “national security” can be used to legitimize practices that violate principles of dignity, proportionality, and non-discrimination. From an economic perspective, it reveals a model in which resources are redistributed to the private security sector, at the cost of distorting the labor market, weakening the productivity of key sectors, and impoverishing migrant families.

In other words, the “detention industry” is not neutral: it is a system that combines border control, privatization of incarceration, and market rationality, with clear consequences for the real economy and the country's democratic quality. The challenge here is to analyze how a security discourse becomes a business machine, and how that business has both an economic and a human cost that is difficult to ignore.

References

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (2025). Privatized Immigration Detention. 
https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/privatized-immigration-detention

Goldman Sachs Research. (2025). How will declining immigration impact the US economy?
https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/how-will-declining-immigration-impact-the-us-economy 

La Nación. (2025, July 26). Immigrant detention, an economic windfall for private prisons in the US. 

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/estados-unidos/detencion-de-inmigrantes-un-mana-economico-para-prisiones-privadas-en-eeuu-nid27072025/

Martínez, A. (2026, April 1). A new report denounces abuses and cruelty at the ICE family detention center in Dilley.

https://elpais.com/us/migracion/2026-04-01/un-nuevo-informe-denuncia-abusos-y-crueldad-en-el-centro-de-detencion-familiar-del-ice-de-dilley.html

NPR. (2025, June 3). Private prisons and local jails are ramping up as ICE detention exceeds capacity. 

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/04/nx-s1-5417980/private-prisons-and-local-jails-are-ramping-up-as-ice-detention-exceeds-capacity

UN News. (2020, July 12). The United States would move away from international humanitarian law with planned changes to its asylum system. 

https://news.un.org/es/story/2020/07/1477271

POST 3: The Black Box Border: Accountability, Automation, and Corporate Power in United States Migration Policy

The landscape of United States border enforcement is no longer just a physical frontier of walls and boots on the ground. Today, it is a digitized, high-tech matrix driven by autonomous technologies—ranging from biometric surveillance and automated risk-scoring algorithms to AI-driven data processing. Crucially, the deployment and management of these advanced tools are heavily outsourced to private defense and technology contractors.

While proponents argue that these innovations streamline operations and enhance national security, the intersection of autonomous systems and privatization creates a profound democratic crisis. It obscures transparency, bypasses constitutional safeguards, and generates what scholars describe as an accountability gap in migration governance.

The Illusion of Objectivity and the Black Box

A primary challenge of utilizing autonomous technologies in immigration enforcement is the phenomenon of automated decision-making. Agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) increasingly rely on algorithmic models to process visa data, assess security risks, and flag anomalies. However, these systems often operate as a "black box." Because the underlying code and training datasets are proprietary intellectual property owned by private corporations, they are shielded from public scrutiny and judicial review.

This lack of transparency makes it incredibly difficult to identify and correct systemic biases. As Beduschi and McAuliffe (2022) point out, while artificial intelligence is often marketed as a neutral, hyper-efficient fix for complex public policy, it frequently replicates or exacerbates existing human biases. When automated data analytics are used to evaluate compliance or flag potential immigration fraud, minor data errors or flawed algorithmic weights can lead to wrongful detentions, visa denials, or family separations. Because the logic behind the machine's output remains hidden, affected migrants have virtually no mechanism to challenge the accuracy of the automated determination.

Shifting Blame in Public-Private Partnerships

The introduction of private contractors further complicates the chain of responsibility. Traditionally, public officials can be held legally accountable for constitutional violations under civil rights frameworks. However, when the U.S. government outsources border surveillance—such as the operation of autonomous drone networks, smart towers, or mobile surveillance applications—to corporate entities, the lines of liability become deeply blurred.

This dynamic creates a legal loophole where the state blames technical glitches or vendor implementation, while the private contractor hides behind proprietary protections or claims they were simply executing a government mandate. Beduschi and McAuliffe (2022) emphasize that the proliferation of these public-private partnerships significantly heightens the risk of human rights abuses precisely because it allows both sovereign states and private corporations to deflect accountability. When no clear entity accepts responsibility for tech-driven errors, the fundamental human rights of vulnerable asylum-seekers and migrants are eroded with impunity.

The Erosion of Due Process and Human Oversight

At its core, accountability requires a clear pathway to remedy when a system fails or harms an individual. In the U.S. immigration system—which is already characterized by broad administrative discretion and minimal oversight—algorithmic governance threatens the constitutional right to due process.

When human border agents rely too heavily on automated recommendations (a phenomenon known as "automation bias"), the machine effectively becomes the decision-maker. If an AI tool flags an individual as a security risk based on opaque data points, the human operator is unlikely to override it. This effectively strips migration management of individualistic, empathetic human assessment, replacing it with cold data metrics that prioritize administrative speed over legal precision (Beduschi & McAuliffe, 2022).

Moving Forward: Restoring Scrutiny to the Digital Frontier

As the United States accelerates its funding for AI and digital border infrastructure, we must acknowledge that technology is never neutral. The outsourcing of migration management to private tech giants cannot come at the cost of human dignity and the rule of law.

To close the accountability gap, policymakers must mandate independent algorithmic audits, require complete data transparency from private vendors, and ensure that final, rights-impacting decisions always rest with accountable public officials rather than proprietary software. Until robust legal frameworks catch up to the digital frontier, the automation of the border will continue to operate in a shadow, transforming human lives into unappealable data points.

References

Beduschi, A., & McAuliffe, M. (2022). Artificial intelligence, migration and mobility: Implications for policy and practice. In M. McAuliffe & A. Triandafyllidou (Eds.), World Migration Report 2022 (pp. 285–302). International Organization for Migration (IOM). https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/WMR-2022-EN-CH-11_0.pdf

PDF resource

POST 1: Legal Black Holes: The Technological Militarization of the U.S. Civilian Border

 Over the last decade, the U.S.-Mexico border has ceased to be a mere geographic line and has evolved into a "surveillance laboratory." Tactics once reserved for foreign battlefields in Iraq or Afghanistan—military-grade motion sensors, Predator drones, high-fidelity facial recognition, and autonomous surveillance towers—are now standard components of the civilian border landscape.

However, this rapid technological evolution has far outpaced the legal frameworks intended to regulate it, creating what academics call "legal black holes." What happens when constitutional protections are diluted in the name of national security?

1. The Erosion of the Fourth Amendment in the "100-Mile Zone"

The most significant legal gap arises from the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. At the border, this protection is weakened under the "border search exception."

The issue is one of geographic scale. According to federal regulations, Border Patrol’s jurisdiction extends up to 100 miles (160 km) inland from any external boundary. Approximately 200 million people live within this strip. Here, the use of mass surveillance technology, such as VADER (Change Detection Radar), allows for constant monitoring that, in any other interior city, would require a warrant based on "probable cause."

2. The "Mirage Doctrine" and Algorithmic Policing

Scholars like Josiah Heyman (2018) argue that militarization is not just physical but bureaucratic. Civilian law enforcement agencies have adopted a "low-intensity conflict" mentality.

The legal vacuum here is algorithmic opacity. When a military drone detects "suspicious behavior" via AI, the legal basis for a stop becomes blurred. Is an algorithm's bias sufficient to deprive an individual of their liberty? Current law offers no clear answer regarding accountability when autonomous systems dictate human intervention.

3. Cross-Border Harms and the Remedy Void

A critical point discussed in academia (Georgetown Law, 2022) is the lack of legal remedies for non-citizens harmed by this surveillance.

• Surveillance as Containment: Technology does more than observe; it directs human flow. By sealing safe urban routes with high-tech surveillance, migrants are pushed into lethal terrain (the Sonoran Desert).

• Qualified Immunity: Agents operating these technologies are often shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. This makes it incredibly difficult for victims of technological overreach such as biometric data misuse or remote-zone assaults—to seek justice in civil courts.

4. The Surveillance-Industrial Complex

The integration of private military contractors into civilian border management creates another gap: the privatization of surveillance. Companies like Anduril or Palantir manage sensitive data that, if held solely by the government, would be subject to transparency laws (FOIA). In private hands, these surveillance processes remain in a "black box," beyond the reach of public and legislative scrutiny.

Where are we headed?

The application of wartime tactics in civilian zones has normalized a permanent state of exception. As long as technology continues to advance without a legal framework that redefines privacy and human rights for the 21st century, border zones will remain spaces where the Constitution is, at best, a suggestion.

References: 

• Georgetown Law. (2022). Legal Black Holes at the U.S.-Mexico Border: An Evaluation of Cross-Border Harms and the Shortcomings of International and Domestic Remedies. Retrieved from: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2022/01/GT-GILJ210007.pdf
• Heyman, J., & Campbell, H. (2018). The Militarization of the United States-Mexico Border Region. Revista de Estudos Universitários. Retrieved from: https://periodicos.uniso.br/reu/article/download/805/819
• Kerr, O. S. (2026). Fourth Amendment Equilibrium Adjustment in an Age of Technological Upheaval. Harvard Law Review. Retrieved from: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/139-Harv.-L.-Rev.-914.pdf
• Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. (2023). Surveillance Report: The Costs of War and the Post-9/11 Expansion of Surveillance. Brown University. Retrieved from: https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/sites/default/files/papers/Surveillance-Report-2023.pdf
• RAND Corporation. (2020). Modeling the Impact of Border-Enforcement Measures. Retrieved from: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR4300/RR4348/RAND_RR4348.pdf

POST 2: Accountability Challenges: Autonomous Technologies and Privatization in U.S Migration Management

The management of migration in the United States has undergone a "massive paradigm shift" (Miller, 2019) following the events of September 11, transforming the border from a geographic line into a global flow of people and goods. This metamorphosis has given rise to what scholars call a "securocratic war", where national security is intertwined with corporate interests and advanced surveillance techonologies. The deployment of autonomous techonologies (like drones, robots, IA and sensors) and the deletagion of functions to private contractros have created a control ecosystem that defies traditional mechanisms of accountability, transparency and respecto for human rights. In the same line, according to Miller in "Empire of Borders: The Expansion of the U.S Border Arounr the World" 

Empire of Borders: The Expansion of the U.S border around the world

To show you about the accountability challenges about this "massive migration program" has in the reality context on the United States of America, we have a couple of arguments to show that position. First at all:

1. Opacity in the "Cyver-Physical Border" 

One of the greatest accountability challenges lies in the nature of the "cyber-physical wall". The use of Predator B drones, integrated fixed towers, and motion sensors creates a constant surveillance environment that, while justified under the premise of security, often operates outside of public scrutiny. 

• Algorithmic Responsability: The use of autonomous objects like the DOGO robot, capable of being armed with pistols, raises the question of who is responsible for a thecnical error or a lethal execution. When a machine makes decisions based on artificial intelligence, the chain of command is diluted, making it difficult to assign legal responsability for abuses of power. 

• Atmospheric Surveillance: As Miller's research indicates, 21st-century state power has become "atmospheric", conditioning daily life through invisible infrastructures. This invisibility prevents citizens and human rights organizations from monitoring the proportionality of the use of force in remote areas. 

2. The Security-Industrial Complex: Privatization and Profit 

The delegation of border security to private companies like Raytheon or General Robotics introduces a fundamental conflict of interest: profit vs protection of fundamental rights. Migration management has become a "security accelerator" where companies sell solutions tested on international battlefields. 

• Corporate Interestes vs Public Good: The business model of these companies depends on the persistence of the migratory "threat". Miller highilghts how former high-level offivials from agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) often transition to the private sector in security consulting firms, creating a "revolving door" (Miller, 2019) system. This pehnomenon complicates accountability, as a public policies may be influenced by the desire to secure million-dollar contracts rather than seeking humanitarian solutions. 

As we have noted, migration management in the United States has undergone a profound transformation driven by the incorporation of technologies such as artificial intelligence, generating "opaque governance" that weakens traditional mechanisms of democratic oversight and challenges the legal frameworks that guarantee the protection of human rights. To demostrate that, we have a couple of two more arguments using a second investigation Inmigration and Human Rights Law Review. 

The Expanding Digital Border: AI, Surveillance, and the Fight for Justice

3. Expansion of the Digital Frontier 

Chesser (2026), points out that the expansion of the "digital frontier" involves the increasing use of tools such as facial recognition, pedictive analytics, and algorithmic surveillance to identify, track and classify migrants. This allows the government greater efficiency in tis control capabilities, but it also presents an even greater problem due to the lack of transparency in the decision-making criteria of these systems, which can directly affect the lives of migrants. 

This phenomenon not only transforms the means of control but also the very nature of migration governance, which was subject to administrative procedures where it was possible to identify those responsible and challenge their decisions. This contrasts significantly with this era of automation, due to a diffuse distribution of responsabilities among government agencies, technology developers and private contractors. As a result, an "accountability gap" emerges when an algorithmic system makes a mistake or produces a discriminatory result, and it is unclear who should be held responsible, thus weakening the right to due process. 

Furthermore, the use of AI in migration control poses significant risks to human rights, Chesser (2026) points out these techonologies can reproduce and amplify existing biases, disproportionately affecting certain groups, especially migrants from vulnerable backgrounds. In addition, technology becomes an instrument of power that can exarcebate structural inequalities in the face of mass surveillance, which compromises the right to privacy and creates and environment of constant control. 

4. Challenges of Automation

Faced with this problem, the law faces the complex of adapting to a constantly envolving technological environment without sacrificing the fundamental principles that underpin liberal democracies. Therefore, it is essential to declare the operation of the systems they use and the criteria they employ in their decision-making, reducing opacity and facilitating both jidicial and citizen oversight. Furthermore, stricter regulation of the participation of private contractors in migration management is required to clearly define their responsabilities and establish accountability mechanisms that prevent the dilution of responsability between the public and private sectors. 

Regarding migration officers, they must be trained and digitally literate, as a proper understanding of how AI works, and the limitations and risks in entails, increases their capacity to make informed decisions. This allows them to challenge border systems and develop independently verifiable technological safeguards, privacy protocols and reliable non-discriminatory implementations to defend migrant´s rights against automated processes. (Chesser, 2026) 

In conclusion and given this scenario, the incorporation of automated technology into inmigration control in the United States can offer substantial benefits in efficiency and security, ut it is essential to strengthen its regulation to protect the rights of migrants. This implies not only adapting existing regulations, but also developing new legal frameworks that recognize the specific risks associated with AI and that act with transparency and faimess, balancing technological innovation with the protecion of human dignity. 

The Expanding Digital Border: AI, Surveillance, and the Fight for Justice

Chesser, James (2026) "The Expanding Digital Border: AI, Surveillance, and the Fight for Justice," Immigration and Human Rights Law Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 2.

Available at: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/ihrlr/vol7/iss1/2 

Empire of Borders: The Expansion of the U.S. Border Around the World. 

Miller, T. (2019) 

Available at: https://surl.li/tikxgz