Resisting Data Driven Deportation in the Trump Era: Preserving Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

-- By SamuelPittman - 16 Dec 2024

When Privacy Clashes with Immigration Relief

Little has changed when it comes to U.S. immigration law. Congress has hardly moved a muscle on the issue of immigration since the passage of The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

However, the mechanisms the federal government employs to surveil and collect data on noncitizens have shifted.

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election placed the issue of immigration at center stage. President-elect Trump is likely to embark on the largest deportation program in American history, articulated through his xenophobic campaign platform.

A group of noncitizens at risk in the upcoming Trump era are those who came to the United States as a child: the 3.6 million Dreamers residing in the United States. 535,030 noncitizens hold active DACA status as of June 2024. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival is a form of administrative relief that protects eligible immigrants who came to the United States when they were children from deportation. However, his figure does not account for many who did not apply for DACA or aged into the program after it stopped accepting new applicants. Thus, the 530,000 DACA recipients make up only a minority of the total Dreamer population.

Throughout the semester, the privacy paradigm has been a focal point: anonymity, secrecy, and autonomy.

Mass deportation is not concocted out of thin air, it results from the exploitation of noncitizen’s data. Thus, if the paradigm of privacy is considered alongside mass deportation, the removal of noncitizens transforms into an issue of privacy.

Mass deportation as an immigration enforcement mechanism in the U.S. invokes questions concerning the legal status of DACA recipients, surveillance, and racial profiling. This essay aims to provide an answer.

United States immigration law is entering an inflection point due to the election of former President Trump. This paper argues that while expedited removal of noncitizens and data-driven deportation is likely to become the new norm in a second Trump presidency, an inquiry analyzing the utility of surveillance mechanisms regarding DACA illuminates pathways to resist data-driven deportation.

Data of Noncitizens is For Sale, Can We Take It Off the Market?

The surveillance of noncitizens who enter this country without admission provides an opportunity to examine the fundamental intersection between law, technology, and politics.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spies on most Americans. ICE has manufactured a large-scale surveillance system that reaches into the lives of millions of individuals in the United States: both noncitizens and U.S. citizens alike.

ICE possesses driver's license data for every three-out-of-four adults living in the U.S. ICE has scanned at least one-in-three driver's licenses with facial recognition technology. ICE has sidestepped state laws that prohibit States from sharing utility information with immigration enforcement authorities, by purchasing utility records through data brokers.

ICE weaponizes technology against noncitizens to function as a tracking device. SmartLINK? , a GPS-enabled mobile application, is installed on mobile devices provided by ICE when a noncitizen awaits an immigration court date or a hearing for an asylum claim. These devices are often a lifeline for noncitizens who have traveled to the border with nothing on their backs. Essentially, these individuals rely on the mobile device to ensure they receive communications on their immigration court date. Yet, ICE is tracking their every movement.

ICE purchases consumer records from utility companies to locate people for deportation by contracting with Thomas Reuters. By contracting with third-party data brokers, ICE has purchased the personal data of millions of American citizens. The threat of harm to undocumented communities across the country is increasing.

Congress's political inaction, expanding technological capabilities, and federal agency overreach have eroded the secrecy, anonymity, and autonomy of noncitizens.

Noncitizen's data is for sale. So much so, that court challenges have ensued. Can the purchase of data be stopped?

Can Surveillance Do All the Lifting?

DACA recipients warrant additional consideration when considering how parasitic surveillance mechanisms may be weaponized as a tool in the removal process.

A significant question looms over analyzing the utility of surveillance mechanisms as applied to those with DACA status: “I trusted the government with my information when I applied for DACA. Can they use it to deport me?”

The vast majority of DACA recipients, unless they have a final order of removal, cannot be simply picked up by CBP or ICE and deported. They are entitled to proper notice and court proceedings conducted before an immigration judge, and these proceedings can take many years to adjudicate. This is a thin layer of protection as compared to noncitizens without DACA status. One of the critical aspects of DACA is that it provides access to employment in the United States. If DACA is rescinded, current DACA recipients would lose their work authorization and all privileges that allow them to travel safely.

DACA adds an additional ripple in evaluating the privacy paradigm. While the surveillance mechanisms are evident questions remain. What information was collected from DACA recipients? How might such information be used in the Trump era? Moreover, President-elect Trump recently said Trump now says he thinks so-called 'Dreamers' should be allowed to stay. Will Congress reach a solution?

Putting a Face to Those with a Dream, Not Just Another Face in the Crowd

Law school trains students to treat common law and legal doctrine as the gospel. However, it sidesteps the communities in which the law impacts the most. DACA recipients and the immigrant community are about to encounter the weaponization of parasitic surveillance against their privacy.

Parasitic surveillance software further exacerbates already tragic circumstances. The internet society we live in already has achieved a total state of surveillance. Now, parasitic software is being weaponized to pursue an end goal of swift, mass deportation.

Both parties in Washington have been unable to legislate on the issue of immigration. Lost in the conversation are the communities impacted by the inaction of our government. While parasitic software is a means, it doesn’t necessarily entail a solidified end.