Limited use of mobile biometrics, data analysis weakens immigration enforcement, US lawmakers told

At a recent House subcommittee hearing, experts and former U.S. homeland security officials testifying on the evolving role of technology in immigration enforcement revealed a mix of successes, failures, and a pressing need for enhanced digital tools to better and more efficiently manage border security and interior enforcement.

John Fabbricatore, a retired career U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official with decades of experience, emphasized the game-changing role of biometrics in identifying and removing criminal elements from the country. He highlighted facial recognition and fingerprinting systems like the EAGLE Direct Identification Environment (EDDIE) as vital in confirming identities swiftly.

EDDIE was first rolled out in 2014 on the NEC NeoScan 45 FAP Multiple Fingerprint Reader, and there have been multiple procurements of the reader since the project’s inception. EDDIE technology has already played a role in intercepting heroin traffickers posing as U.S. citizens.

EDDIE is a portable, cellular fingerprint and photo scanner about the size of an iPhone which allows special agents and officers to check the biometrics of those they encounter and receive very rapid response. The tool can provide the true identity of an individual, a history of law enforcement encounters, help determine alienage and removability, and whether or not the person may have outstanding warrants.

“Technology has been a game-changer in the realm of biometrics, allowing us to collect and analyze unique physical characteristics for identification purposes,” Fabbricatore told the subcommittee. “Facial recognition technology, in particular, has become increasingly sophisticated and effective in identifying individuals who may pose a threat to national security or public safety. This type of technology has proven invaluable in disrupting human trafficking networks and preventing fraudulent entry into the country.”

However, Fabbricatore argued that the government remains too reliant on outdated methods, often forcing officers to sift manually through multiple databases instead of using AI-driven targeting systems. “We need to evolve with the times and leverage all existing technology in the private sector to enhance targeting and create high volume targeting packages through automation software,” Fabbricatore said.

Dr. Doug Gilmer, a 35-year veteran of law enforcement with the majority of that time spent with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), echoed Fabbricatore’s concerns. He emphasized that while technology is crucial in countering human trafficking and transnational criminal organizations, bureaucratic inefficiencies and outdated procurement processes slow its adoption. “In my last field assignment, we only had about five EDDIE machines for HSI personnel statewide,” he said.

“Technology can aid in targeting the most extreme threats, identifying trends and patterns, identifying victims, and to analyze vast amounts of data quickly, allowing for a faster and more efficient law enforcement response, while protecting personally identifying information,” Gilmer argued, adding that “the government has been routinely hampered by its ability to effectively integrate the latest technology, however, and at times has ineffectively used technology in ways that impeded investigative efforts.”

One of the most pressing issues raised by the witnesses is the role of Alternatives to Detention (ATD) programs. Simon Hankinson, a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation outlined the challenges with ICE’s Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, which uses GPS monitoring and facial recognition through SmartLINK to track migrants awaiting immigration proceedings.

While proponents argue that the program is cost-effective compared to traditional detention, critics point to the high rate of absconders. Hankinson cited a leaked ICE report from 2020 showing that 84 percent of migrants in the ATD program ultimately vanished before their cases concluded.

“Roughly 87 percent of aliens in ISAP are tracked using SmartLINK, a phone application which uses facial-recognition technology to allow participants to check in using a cell phone,” Hankinson said. “Roughly half of those enrolled use their personal cell phones, and half are provided with devices by the contractor that are limited exclusively to the SmartLINK function. The SmartLINK app can be used to monitor location via GPS tracking, but so far ICE has not required the contractor to use this feature and location tracking by phone is ‘not in use for any ISAP participant.’”

Deborah Fleischaker, a former high-ranking DHS official, took a different stance, arguing that enforcement challenges are not necessarily about access to data, but rather the ability to process and prioritize it effectively. She noted that ICE already has vast data repositories through interoperability with the FBI and state databases, but lacks the analytical tools to turn this data into actionable intelligence.

“In my experience, immigration law enforcement already has access to vast amounts of data and technology, and immigration officers have no shortage of potential enforcement targets. What they do not have enough of, however, is the ability to analyze, sort, and prioritize that data to ensure they are focused on the right targets,” Fleischaker told lawmakers. She said ICE’s “efforts to modernize how it uses data has been hampered by competing demands in a resource-constrained environment. Ultimately, ICE’s data modernization efforts have been cannibalized by its other, more-immediate operational demands.”

While each witness agreed on the need for better technology, they differed on what that technology should prioritize. Fabbricatore and Gilmer pushed for greater automation and AI-driven targeting to streamline enforcement. Gilmer advocated for more extensive use of automated license plate readers, live video analysis, and AI-assisted fraud detection to identify illegal immigration patterns. However, Fleischaker warned that such expansive data collection efforts must be balanced with privacy protections and oversight to prevent overreach.

Another technological hurdle is the integration of existing systems across agencies. Hankinson and Gilmer criticized the siloed nature of ICE and DHS databases, which often prevent seamless information sharing. While programs like Secure Communities once facilitated real-time data exchange between federal, state, and local law enforcement, political shifts have led to its suspension and reinstatement multiple times over the past decade, creating uncertainty for enforcement officers.

The witnesses also shed light on the broader implications of technological inefficiencies. Fabbricatore and Hankinson pointed to the rise of transnational criminal organizations like Tren De Aragua which have exploited weaknesses in immigration enforcement to establish operations in major U.S. cities. According to Gilmer, many of these groups engage in human trafficking and drug smuggling, with law enforcement often forced to rely on better-equipped private sector partners for intelligence gathering.

One of the few success stories highlighted was the DHS Center for Countering Human Trafficking’s overhaul of the Continued Presence process. Previously, trafficking victims seeking protection could wait over a year for approval. A newly digitized system has reduced processing times to as little as three weeks. This example, Gilmer argued, proves that when properly implemented, technology can drastically improve enforcement efficiency.

Looking forward, the witnesses outlined several key recommendations for leveraging technology more effectively. Fabbricatore called for increased funding for tech-driven enforcement programs, particularly AI-based analytics that can parse through existing data more efficiently. Hankinson suggested that ICE should prioritize GPS tracking throughout the entire immigration process rather than terminating ATD supervision prematurely. Fleischaker urged a more cautious approach, emphasizing that while technology can enhance enforcement, it should not come at the cost of due process or civil liberties.

The consensus among the witnesses was clear: technology has the potential to revolutionize immigration enforcement, but only if it is deployed strategically, efficiently, and with proper oversight. With a growing non-detained docket surpassing 7.6 million individuals and the increasing complexity of transnational crime, the government faces an urgent need to modernize its approach.

However, as Fleischaker warned, the challenge is not merely acquiring more data, but ensuring that enforcement officers have the right tools to act on it effectively. As lawmakers consider these insights, the future of immigration enforcement will likely depend on their ability to balance security, efficiency, and privacy.

Article Topics

biometric identification  |  biometrics  |  border security  |  DHS  |  ICE  |  immigration  |  mobile biometrics  |  national security  |  NEC America  |  U.S. Government