ICE’s Data-Driven Dragnet Expands: A Threat to Vulnerable Children

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) data-driven surveillance efforts have raised concerns about the agency’s expanding reach into the lives of vulnerable children. A recent contract renewal with Thomson Reuters, a giant data broker, will see ICE continue to access proprietary databases worth up to $25 million per year for five years.

The ostensible reason for this renewed focus on unaccompanied minors is to identify potential sponsors and ensure their suitability for providing care. However, this justification raises more questions than answers. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) already oversees the care of these children through the Office of Refugee Resettlement. So, what constitutes a credible risk assessment in this context?

ICE’s renewed contract with Thomson Reuters would grant them continued access to databases like CLEAR and CABS, which contain sensitive information about individuals, including real-time alerting on last known location data. This raises concerns about ICE’s ability to track the movements and activities of potential sponsors, potentially using that information against vulnerable families.

The increasing scrutiny applied to unaccompanied minors’ sponsors has already had a chilling effect. Historically, Office of Refugee Resettlement staff conducted background checks with an eye toward indicators that could put children at risk. However, new guidance introduced last year requires all sponsors and adult household members to undergo fingerprinting and provide specific identification documents. This has drastically narrowed the pool of potential sponsors, increasing the time it takes for these families to secure care.

The use of data-driven surveillance technologies raises fundamental questions about individual rights and freedoms, particularly in cases where vulnerable populations are involved. As a nation, we must grapple with the consequences of allowing our immigration enforcement agencies to increasingly blur the lines between law enforcement and social services.

Jason Boyd, vice president of federal policy at Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), notes that “with every passing day, it becomes more difficult to discern where ORR ends and ICE begins.” This blurring of lines has severe consequences for families who are already struggling to cope with the trauma of migration.

The expanded use of data-driven surveillance technologies raises questions about our immigration system as a whole. Will this lead to more stringent regulations on family separation policies? Or will it further entrench the notion that certain populations – including unaccompanied minors and their sponsors – are inherently “high-risk”?

As policymakers grapple with these questions, one thing is clear: the continued escalation of ICE’s surveillance efforts must be met with skepticism and scrutiny. We must ensure that our immigration enforcement agencies prioritize the welfare and safety of vulnerable children over any perceived security threats.

The future of our nation’s policies on immigration will depend in part on how we choose to address these pressing concerns. The expansion of ICE’s data-driven dragnet has put unaccompanied minors and their families at risk, raising questions about whether this development will serve as a catalyst for meaningful reform or further entrench the status quo.