By: Lina Arroyave and Abby Steckel

Imagine a person who is forced to leave their home because of violence or poverty. They cross dangerous territories without documents, seeking safety. Upon arrival, they face not only physical barriers, but also technologies that monitor, profile, and often return them to their point of departure. This is the reality for millions of migrants and refugees who, in their search for protection, must confront increasingly sophisticated and hostile surveillance systems.

Borders have historically been spaces of control and exclusion. But in recent years, the use of digital technology has redefined the way governments regulate human mobility. Biometric surveillance, presented as a tool for security, has become an invisible barrier that determines the fate of millions of migrants and asylum seekers. The central question is: what happens when technologies designed to facilitate “migration management” become mechanisms of discrimination and exclusion? So-called “smart borders”—technologies such as facial recognition and the collection of other biometric data—have redefined migration control, transforming it into a mechanism of exclusion and criminalization.

Biometric data, because it is personal and sensitive, requires rigorous handling, but today it is used without sufficient safeguards, exposing people to surveillance and discrimination. A clear example is the CBP One app, promoted during the Joe Biden administration as part of so-called “humanitarian border management.” This allowed asylum seekers to schedule appointments to enter the country and begin the process of relocation. However, organizations such as the Black Alliance for Just Immigration reported that the app’s facial recognition system had significant flaws in identifying Black people, preventing many from accessing asylum.

Although CBP One was no longer used as a means of access to asylum after the change of government, it was replaced in 2025 by CBP Home, an app created by the Trump administration to manage self-deportation processes. In practice, migrants are asked to organize their own departure from the country without accompaniment or clear legal guarantees. This new use reinforces the trend of shifting the burden of immigration control onto those seeking protection, under a cloak of voluntarism that masks the lack of real options for regularization. Meanwhile, the use of surveillance technologies at borders continues to grow, especially the collection and sharing of biometric data between states. These practices, with little oversight and no guarantees of protection, threaten the privacy, dignity, and safety of millions of migrants and asylum seekers.

Biometric data sharing agreements: the role of the United States in Latin America

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States intensified its national security policies and expanded surveillance programs outside its territory. One of these is the Biometric Identification Transnational Migration Alert Program (BITMAP), implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) since 2011. Officially, the program seeks to prevent the entry of terrorists, but the lack of transparency about its operation raises concerns among human rights organizations, as it is not possible to verify whether it is actually limited to this purpose.

Documents obtained by organizations such as Immigrant Advocates Response Collective and Just Futures Law reveal that at least 18 Latin American countries, including Colombia, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mexico, have signed agreements with the United States to share biometric data on migrants, such as fingerprints, facial images, and iris scans. Although these mechanisms are justified on the grounds of combating organized crime and streamlining immigration processes, in practice they reinforce surveillance, justify deportations, and hinder access to asylum.

For example, in 2013, Mexico and the US signed a memorandum of cooperation that allows for the exchange of biometric data on non-Mexican migrants crossing the border. This agreement, like others in Central America, is justified in terms of criminal investigation, but offers no clear guarantees regarding the use of data or respect for due process.

In the case of Colombia, in addition to its participation in BITMAP since 2016, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently signed a new letter of intent with the United States. This document seeks to strengthen immigration control at the borders, but its content has not been made public. Although the Colombian government assures that national data protection laws will be respected, more than 2,000 deportations of Colombians have already been reported under this collaboration. Questions remain about the type of information that will be shared and the level of access that the current US administration will have.

Databases and smart borders: the dangers of mass surveillance

One of the most alarming examples of the use of biometric data is the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology (HART) database, administered by the DHS. With more than 280 million profiles, it is used to combat terrorism and crime. However, organizations such as the Surveillance Resistance Lab have warned that HART operates without rigorous controls on the quality of the data it receives from abroad, which can lead to erroneous decisions on deportation or denial of asylum. It is enough for a person to have been registered in another country as an “irregular” or “person of interest” migrant to be flagged in the system, with no possibility of challenging that classification. In practice, HART allows for mass surveillance without judicial oversight or guarantees, intensifying the risks of discrimination, especially towards racialized people or those with precarious migration trajectories.

This logic is not unique to the US. In Chile, for example, the Ministry of the Interior began in 2024 to collect biometric data at its northern border, which will be shared with national and international agencies. These technologies—presented as “smart borders”—not only scan faces or fingerprints, but also classify bodies, assign risk levels, and define who deserves protection. A facial recognition error or a misinterpreted immigration record can be enough to exclude someone from applying for asylum. Under the promise of efficiency, a model of control is being consolidated that erodes the privacy and dignity of migrants and refugees.

Risks to the rights of migrants and people in need of international protection

The use of surveillance technologies amplifies the risks of discrimination, especially against racialized people. But these risks do not come only from how they are used, but also from their design: these technologies are developed by people and trained with data that often excludes diversity of features, contexts, and bodies. Facial recognition systems, for example, often misidentify people with dark skin: sometimes they confuse them with other people (which can lead to unjust arrests), and other times they do not even recognize them (which prevents them from accessing services or procedures). These errors are not isolated failures, but a reflection of biases built into the very design of these technologies.

All the data provided to the US government is available to Trump for his mass deportation campaign, which is violating the right to due process, among other rights. Immigration authorities can link biometric information to location data and algorithms that predict alleged criminality. For example, the RAVEn system, developed by the DHS, uses artificial intelligence to flag individuals as “suspicious” of criminal activity. This data and these predictions can be used to monitor migrants and justify arbitrary decisions against them. These systems not only lack transparency in their operation, but also operate on the basis of institutional biases that reinforce racial stereotypes and criminalize poverty or irregular migration. Once categorized as “of interest,” migrants can be monitored or detained without cause, violating basic principles of due process and the presumption of innocence.

A new Trump mandate: the future of anti-migration surveillance

Although many of these practices originated in previous administrations, Donald Trump’s new presidency has alarmingly intensified human rights violations. His government has reinforced a model of surveillance and detention that criminalizes migrants, consolidating a policy of extreme control.

Trump has made clear his goal of surpassing the deportation figures achieved by Barack Obama, using all available resources to pursue irregular migration. This could mean the expansion of programs such as BITMAP and HART, strengthening a system where repression takes precedence over human rights. In November 2024, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that it would receive proposals for the acquisition of new surveillance tools, indicating that the immigration control infrastructure will continue to grow.

Furthermore, the passage of the Laken Riley Act in January 2025 exacerbates the situation. The law mandates the mandatory detention of migrants accused of certain misdemeanors, even if the charges are unfounded, until their immigration status is resolved. This is estimated to increase the number of people detained in the US by 250%.

Resisting mass surveillance

Intensive biometric surveillance is not a humanitarian solution to managing migration; it is a control mechanism that reinforces discrimination, erodes rights, and exposes migrants to even greater risks. What is presented as technological innovation becomes a tool of persecution when it falls into the hands of leaders who openly promote xenophobia and militarism. Today, these technologies do not protect, but punish, and their unchecked expansion threatens to consolidate a system where surveillance replaces justice. The response must be the unwavering defense of human dignity, privacy, and the right to migrate. A more just future is not built with surveillance and repression, but with policies that recognize the humanity of those seeking international protection and a better life.

Faced with this situation, the response cannot be resignation. Human rights organizations in the Americas must urgently coordinate to halt the advance of these exclusionary policies, demand transparency, and hold states accountable for the misuse of technologies that affect the lives of millions of people. Along these lines, networks such as INCLO, the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations have developed principles for the use of facial recognition, which offer ethical guidelines to limit abuses and defend rights in digital environments. It is not just a matter of resisting, but of transforming the migration debate by dismantling the false dilemma between security and human rights. Surveillance cannot be the price of mobility, and the fight for a fairer migration system must be an urgent priority.