by UntoldMag
this Article First published by Tsion Gurmu, Hinako Sugiyama and Sobechukwu Uwajeh UntoldMag On November 25, 2025, an edited version was republished on Global Voices as part of a content sharing agreement. This post is also part of Global Voices’ April 2026 Spotlight Series, “Human perspective on AI“ You can support this coverage by donating here.
From grocery shopping to streaming services, schools to workplaces, battlefields to governance— Artificial intelligence (AI) Spring is everywhere.
But as AI becomes more embedded in governance and security, its role in border enforcement and immigration control has grown exponentially. These technologies often reproduce and intensify racial inequality, particularly through algorithmic bias. This is no less relevant to the US government’s use of so-called “smart borders”.
What happens when AI is deployed to decide who can move, who is detained and who is excluded at the border?
A human rights framework
In response to the 2023 meeting with the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, the Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI) and the Immigrant Rights Clinic and International Justice Clinic at UC Irvine (UCI) School of Law have submitted a Report How AI disproportionately harms black immigrants and immigrants of color and suggests future changes.
Legal frameworks already exist under international human rights law to regulate how states should use AI. Chief among them is International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which the United States ratified in 1994.
ICERD requires states to: prevent all forms of racial discrimination (Art. 2(1)(a)); Amend policies and laws that perpetuate racial discrimination (Art. 2(1)(c)); Guarantee of equal treatment before the law (Art. 5); Ensure redress for victims (Art. 6), and hold private actors accountable (Art. 2(1)(d)).
By these standards, the United States is legally obligated to ensure that AI does not reinforce racial discrimination.
Surveillance before the border
In reality, however, the BAJI and UCI clinics detail how US AI border enforcement policy violates many of these rules at every stage of the immigration process.
Before migrants reach any land border, AI systems track their movements. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) replaces human patrols with autonomous surveillance towers and drones to detect “objects of interest.”
Rapidly expanding use Surveillance towers and small unmanned aerial systems Raises serious concerns about racial equity at the US-Mexico border (sUAS). To begin with, those under surveillance include large numbers of people fleeing violence, persecution, and even torture, who are entitled to protection in the United States under domestic and international law. However, because of their more limited access to formal immigration procedures, immigrants of color are forced to risk their lives to cross the border.
Second, the use of Anduril Towers, sUAS, and other types of AI-powered surveillance systems at that border perpetuates discrimination by identifying those migrants as lawbreakers and threats to national security, rather than people seeking safety and security.
Disproportionate surveillance of immigrants of color translates into disproportionately higher death rates for the same group as they push into more dangerous terrain.
CBP claims New AI-powered systems are more responsible and humane than physical border walls. According to CBP, Smart Borders can help prevent irregular crossings and enhance immigrant security by having the ability to detect, capture and safely deport migrants lost in the desert or mountains.
Yet, the data shows the opposite is true — increased implementation of “smart border” technology has led to historically high immigrant death rates.
Algorithmic risk scoring
Formal entry paths are also shaped by algorithmic biases The CBP One app, implemented by the Biden administration to streamline immigration processes, once required all entry applications and demanded a selfie to verify applicants. Yet the system often fails to recognize darker skin tones, misidentifying black faces at about 10 to 100 times higher rates than white faces, according to legal scholar Priya Morley “AI at the Frontier: Racial Implications and Implications“
The app was also inaccessible to many communities: it lacked translations into the main languages spoken by the black immigrant population, adding another barrier. Although CBP One is no longer available, debate continues about its reinstatement under the current administration.
Even if migrants pass the first stage, they face automatic targeting systems (ATS), which compiles domestic and international databases to predict who may overstay their visas.
Although risk assessment is common in the immigration system, the ATS system perpetuates already existing biases. For example, when Nigeria was added to a list of countries facing heightened travel restrictions in 2020, Nigerians were identified as disproportionately high risk by the ATS.
Officials claim these systems are preventative, not punitive. Yet their design perpetuates structural racial inequality, contradicting US commitments under ICERD.
ICE enforcement within the United States
Once inside the United States, immigrants face further AI-driven discrimination from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during detention and internal enforcement.
ICE uses predictive algorithms such as a “Hurricane Score” to determine who deserves a higher watch. There is a lack of transparency on the factors that influence hurricane scores. Because the algorithm is provided by a private company, BI IncWhich has strong ties to the prison industry, the government has not revealed what factors affect this score.
ICE also uses storage for analytics in a virtualized environment (the raven) platform to analyze trends and patterns across a series of data sources to further assess the risks that immigrants may pose in the US RAVEn draws from biased local law enforcement data from offices across 56 countries and international databases. Immigrants cannot opt out or even consent to data collection.
Lack of transparency and absence of remedies in this system have been raised severe anxiety in Rights Watcher Regarding compliance with ICERD articles and anti-discrimination regulations.
Decolonizing AI
Finally, under the Immigration Relief Act, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is using AI to sort evidence and detect fraud in applications. Training Model Asylum Text Analytics (ATA) is a system that detects fraud by reading the text of asylum applications.
Often, the ATA may favor non-English speaking applicants. This is especially true for those who speak more specialized languages and translate through the same providers, as the ATA may exclude valid claims from those whose applications contain the same phrases or descriptions as other applications.
Instead of simplifying its application process, USCIS uses an AI-powered evidence classifier to “review” millions of pages of evidence, from birth certificates to medical records and photos of USCIS judges. These AI reviews can negatively affect immigrants who may have outstanding documentation, often exacerbating racial discrimination.
BAJI and UCI argue that addressing these pitfalls requires a decolonial approach to AI. They called Cosmo UbuntuAn African philosophical framework rooted in shared humanity rather than collectivism and individualism. It involves a voluntary embrace uBuntu (personhood) as “a fundamental value system for our participation in planetary transparency without forcing universality.”
In contrast to Western-centric, individualistic views on humanity, African cosmology embraces the humanity of all people.
To align with ICERD and truly colonize AI, African and Diaspora communities need to be actively involved in the conception, innovation, innovation and management of AI systems.
Policy recommendations
Individuals who may be negatively affected by the use of AI must be promptly informed of such decisions and, where appropriate, given the option to opt out of AI systems.
US federal laws governing DHS’s use of AI must prohibit and prevent the use of AI that results in racially discriminatory outcomes or exacerbates structural racial disparities. They should mandate effective anti-discrimination mechanisms, independent oversight of implementation, robust public disclosure, stakeholder consultation with diverse populations, and access to effective remedies by those negatively affected by DHS’s use of AI.
City policies must include a clear commitment not to share information with DHS if it is expected to be used by DHS or its vendors for AI development or deployment.
Embedded in each of these calls is a clear message: Until AI systems are non-discriminatory and until diverse perspectives are meaningfully included in their development and use, they should not be allowed to be used across borders.
–
Previously published with globalvoices.org Creative Commons License
Join The Good Men Project as a Premium Member today.
All premium members can watch The Good Men Project without any ads. A full list of benefits is here.
–
Image: splash
