AI is turning border enforcement in the US into a game
In Arizona's borderlands, the desert is already deadly. People crossing into the United States face blistering heat, dehydration, and exhaustion. But for years, another threat has stalked these routes: Armed vigilante groups who take it upon themselves to police the border – often violently, and outside the law. They have long undermined the work of humanitarian volunteers trying to save lives.
Now, a new artificial intelligence platform is actively encouraging more people to join their ranks. ICERAID.us, recently launched in the United States, offers cryptocurrency rewards to users who upload photos of 'suspicious activity' along the border. It positions civilians as front-line intelligence gatherers – doing the work of law enforcement, but without oversight.
The site opens to a map of the United States, dotted with red and green pins marking user-submitted images. Visitors are invited to add their own. A 'Surveillance Guidance' document outlines how to capture images legally in public without a warrant. A 'Breaking News' section shares updates and new partnerships. The platform is fronted by Enrique Tarrio – a first-generation Cuban American, far-right figure and self-styled 'ICE Raid Czar', who describes himself as a 'staunch defender of American values'.
I have been researching border surveillance since 2017. Arizona is a place I return to often. I've worked with NGOs and accompanied search-and-rescue teams like Battalion Search and Rescue, led by former US Marine James Holeman, on missions to recover the remains of people who died attempting the crossing. During that time, I've also watched the region become a laboratory for high-tech enforcement: AI towers from an Israeli company now scan the desert; automated licence plate readers track vehicles far inland; and machine-learning algorithms – developed by major tech companies – feed data directly into immigration enforcement systems.
This is not unique to the United States. In my book The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, I document how similar technologies are being deployed across Europe and the Middle East – from spyware in Greek refugee camps to predictive border enforcement by the EU's border agency, Frontex. These tools extend surveillance and control. They do not bring accountability or safety.
Since Donald Trump's re-election in 2024, these trends have accelerated. Surveillance investment has surged. Private firms have flourished. ICE has expanded its powers to include unlawful raids, detentions and deportations. Military units have been deployed to the US-Mexico border. Now, ICERAID adds a new layer – by outsourcing enforcement to the public.
The platform offers crypto rewards to users who upload and verify photographic 'evidence' across eight categories of alleged criminal activity. The more contributions and locations submitted, the more tokens earned. Surveillance becomes gamified. Suspicion becomes a revenue stream.
This is especially dangerous in Arizona, where vigilante violence has a long history. Paramilitary-style groups have detained people crossing the border without legal authority, sometimes forcing them back into Mexico. Several people are known to have died in such encounters. ICERAID does not check this behaviour – it normalises it, providing digital tools and financial incentives for civilians to act like enforcers.
Even more disturbing is the co-optation of resistance infrastructure. ICERAID's URL, www.iceraid.us, is nearly identical to www.iceraids.us, the website of People Over Papers, a community-led initiative that tracks ICE raids and protects undocumented communities. The similarity is no accident. It is a deliberate move to confuse and undermine grassroots resistance.
ICERAID is not an anomaly. It is a clear reflection of a broader system – one that criminalises migration, rewards suspicion, and expands enforcement through private tech and public fear. Public officials incite panic. Corporations build the tools. Civilians are enlisted to do the job.
Technology is never neutral. It mirrors and amplifies existing power structures. ICERAID does not offer security – it builds a decentralised surveillance regime in which racialised suspicion is monetised and lives are reduced to data. Recognising and resisting this system is not only necessary to protect people on the move. It is essential to the survival of democracy itself.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
8 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What cases did the US Supreme Court decide at the end of its 2024 term?
The United States Supreme Court has ended its latest term with a host of blockbuster decisions, touching on everything from healthcare coverage to school reading lists. On Friday, the court issued the final decisions of the 2024 term before it takes several months of recess. The nine justices on its bench will reconvene in October. But before their departure, the justices made headlines. In a major victory for the administration of President Donald Trump, the six-person conservative majority decided to limit the ability of courts to issue universal injunctions that would block executive actions nationwide. Trump has long denounced court injunctions as an attack on his executive authority. In two other rulings, the Supreme Court's conservative majority again banded together. One decision allowed parents to opt out of school materials that include LGBTQ themes, while the other gave the go-ahead to Texas to place barriers to prevent youth from viewing online pornography. But a decision on healthcare access saw some conservative justices align with their three left-wing colleagues. Here is an overview of their final rulings of the 2024 term. Court upholds preventive care requirements In the case of Kennedy v Braidwood Management, the Supreme Court saw its usual ideological divides fracture. Three conservative justices – Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts – joined with the court's liberal branch, represented by Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, for a six-to-three ruling. At stake was the ability of a government task force to determine what kinds of preventive healthcare the country's insurance providers had to cover. It was the latest case to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation passed under former President Barack Obama to expand healthcare access. This case focused on a section of the act that allowed a panel of health experts – under the Department of Health and Human Services – to determine what preventive services should be covered at no cost. A group of individuals and Christian-owned businesses had challenged the legality of that task force, though. They argued that the expert panel was a violation of the Appointments Clause, a section of the Constitution that requires certain political appointees to be chosen by the president and approved by the Senate. The group had previously secured an injunction against the task force's decision that HIV prevention medications be covered as preventive care. That specific injunction was not weighed in the Supreme Court's decision. But writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh affirmed that the task force was constitutional, because it was made up of 'inferior officers' who did not need Senate approval. Court gives nod to Texas's age restrictions on porn Several states, including Texas, require users to verify their age before accessing pornographic websites, with the aim of shielding minors from inappropriate material. But Texas's law came under the Supreme Court's microscope on Friday, in a case called Free Speech Coalition v Ken Paxton. The Free Speech Coalition is a nonprofit that represents workers in the adult entertainment industry. They sued Texas's attorney general, Paxton, arguing that the age-verification law would dampen First Amendment rights, which protect the right to free expression, free association and privacy. The plaintiffs noted the risks posed by sharing personally identifying information online, including the possibility that identifying information like birthdates and sensitive data could be leaked. The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, warned that Texas's law 'robs people of anonymity'. Writing for the Supreme Court's conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged that 'submitting to age verification is a burden on the exercise' of First Amendment rights. But, he added, 'adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification' altogether. The majority upheld Texas's law. Court affirms children can withdraw from LGBTQ school material The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority also continued its streak of religious freedom victories, with a decision in Mahmoud v Taylor. That case centred on the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland, where books portraying LGBTQ themes had been approved for use in primary school curricula. One text, for example, was a picture book called Love, Violet, which told the story of a young girl mustering the courage to give a Valentine to a female classmate. Another book, titled Pride Puppy, follows a child searching for her lost dog during an annual parade to celebrate LGBTQ pride. Parents of children in the school district objected to the material on religious grounds, and some books, like Pride Puppy, were eventually withdrawn. But the board eventually announced it would refuse to allow parents to opt out of the approved material, on the basis that it would create disruptions in the learning environment. Some education officials also argued that allowing kids to opt out of LGBTQ material would confer a stigma on the people who identify as part of that community – and that LGBTQ people were simply a fact of life. In the majority's decision, Justice Samuel Alito asserted that the education board's policy 'conveys that parents' religious views are not welcome in the 'fully inclusive environment' that the Board purports to foster'. 'The curriculum itself also betrays an attempt to impose ideological conformity with specific views on sexuality and gender,' Alito wrote. Court limits the use of nationwide injunctions Arguably, the biggest decision of the day was another ruling decided by the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority. In the case Trump v CASA, the Trump administration had appealed the use of nationwide injunctions all the way up to the highest court in the land. At stake was an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office for his second term. That order sought to whittle down the concept of birthright citizenship, a right conferred under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Previously, birthright citizenship had applied to nearly everyone born on US soil: Regardless of their parents' nationality, the child would receive US citizenship. But Trump has denounced that application of birthright citizenship as too broad. In his executive order, he put restrictions on birthright citizenship depending on whether the parents were undocumented immigrants. Legal challenges erupted as soon as the executive order was published, citing Supreme Court precedent that upheld birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of the parent. Federal courts in states like Maryland and Washington quickly issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the executive order from taking effect. The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh the merits of Trump's order on birthright citizenship. But it did evaluate a Trump administration petition arguing that the nationwide injunctions were instances of judicial overreach. The conservative supermajority sided with Trump, saying that injunctions should generally not be universal but instead should focus on relief for the specific plaintiffs at hand. One possible exception, however, would be for class action lawsuits. Amy Coney Barrett, the court's latest addition and a Trump appointee, penned the majority's decision. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,' she wrote. 'But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.'
Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
University of Virginia president resigns under US government pressure
The president of the University of Virginia has resigned his position under pressure from the United States Department of Justice, which pushed for his departure amid scrutiny of the school's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices. In an email sent to the university community on Friday and circulated on social media, university president James Ryan said he was resigning to protect the institution from facing the ire of the government. 'I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job,' he wrote. 'To do so would not only be quixotic but appear selfish and self-centered to the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs, the researchers who would lose their funding, and the hundreds of students who could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld.' Ryan's resignation has been accepted by the board, two sources told The New York Times, which first broke the story. It remains unclear exactly when he will leave his post. His departure is the latest indication of ongoing tensions between the administration of President Donald Trump and the academic community. During his second term, President Trump has increasingly sought to reshape higher education by attacking diversity initiatives, pushing for crackdowns on pro-Palestinian student protesters, and seeking reviews of hiring and enrollment practices. Ryan's departure marks a new frontier in a campaign that has almost exclusively targeted Ivy League schools. Critics also say it shows a shift in the government's rationale, away from allegations of rampant anti-Semitism on campus and towards more aggressive policing of diversity initiatives. Just a day prior, the Justice Department announced it would investigate another public school, the University of California, for its use of diversity standards. Ryan, who has led the University of Virginia since 2018, faced criticism that he failed to heed federal orders to eliminate DEI policies. An anonymous source told The Associated Press news agency that his removal was pushed by the Justice Department as a way to help resolve an inquiry targeting the school. Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, called Ryan's ouster an example of the Trump administration using 'thuggery instead of rational discourse'. 'This is a dark day for the University of Virginia, a dark day for higher education, and it promises more of the same,' Mitchell said. 'It's clear the administration is not done and will use every tool that it can make or invent to exert its will over higher education.' Virginia's Democratic senators react In a joint statement, Virginia's senators, both Democrats, said it was outrageous that the Trump administration would demand Ryan's resignation over ''culture war' traps'. 'This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future,' Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said. After campaigning on a promise to end 'wokeness' in education, Trump signed an executive order in January calling for an end to federal funding that would support educational institutions with DEI programming. He accused schools of indoctrinating 'children in radical, anti-American ideologies' without the permission of their parents. The Department of Education has since opened investigations into dozens of colleges, arguing that diversity initiatives discriminate against white and Asian American students. The response from schools has been scattered. Some have closed DEI offices, ended diversity scholarships and no longer require diversity statements as part of the hiring process. Still, others have held firm on diversity policies. The University of Virginia became a flashpoint after conservative critics accused it of simply renaming its DEI initiatives. The school's governing body voted to shutter the DEI office in March and end diversity policies in admissions, hiring, financial aid and other areas. Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin celebrated the action, declaring that 'DEI is done at the University of Virginia'. But America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, said that DEI had simply taken another form at the school. In a May letter to the Justice Department, the group said the university chose to 'rename, repackage, and redeploy the same unlawful infrastructure under a lexicon of euphemisms'. The group directly took aim at Ryan, noting that he joined hundreds of other college presidents in signing a public statement condemning the 'overreach and political interference' of the Trump administration. On Friday, the group said it will continue to use every available tool to root out what it has called discriminatory systems. 'This week's developments make clear: public universities that accept federal funds do not have a license to violate the Constitution,' Megan Redshaw, a lawyer with the group, said in a statement. 'They do not get to impose ideological loyalty tests, enforce race and sex-based preferences, or defy lawful executive authority.' Until now, the White House had directed most of its attention at Harvard University and other elite institutions that Trump sees as bastions of liberalism. Harvard has lost more than $2.6bn in federal research grants amid its battle with the government, which also attempted to block the school from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. Harvard and its $53bn endowment are uniquely positioned to weather the government's financial pressure. Public universities, however, are far more dependent on taxpayer money and could be more vulnerable. The University of Virginia's $10bn endowment is among the largest for public universities, while the vast majority have far less.
Al Jazeera
10 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
California Governor Newsom sues Fox News for $787m over alleged defamation
California Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a $787m defamation lawsuit against Fox News, accusing the network of misrepresenting a phone call between him and US President Donald Trump earlier this month amid immigration arrests and the subsequent protests in Los Angeles. The complaint was filed on Friday in Delaware Superior Court, the state in which Fox Corp is incorporated. Newsom spoke by phone with Trump late on June 6 – early June 7 on the East Coast, soon after protests broke out in Los Angeles following federal immigration raids. Less than 24 hours later, the president sent National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the state, bypassing the governor's office. In an interview with NBC News on June 8, Newsom said that he had a civil conversation with the president, but he never brought up sending the National Guard. 'I tried to talk about LA, he wanted to talk about all these other issues,' Newsom said. 'He never once brought up the National Guard,' he added. Newsom said he did not speak with Trump again, and confirmed this after Trump falsely told reporters on June 10 that he had spoken with the governor 'a day ago'. The suit alleged that the network had a 'willingness to protect President Trump from his own false statements by smearing his political opponent Governor Newsom in a dispute over when the two last spoke during a period of national strife'. The complaint said Fox nonetheless made a misleading video clip and multiple false statements about the timing of the last call, acting with actual malice in an effort to brand Newsom a liar and curry favour with Trump. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?' Watters said on June 10 on his show, Jesse Watters Primetime, according to the complaint. Watters's report was accompanied by a chyron, a banner caption along the bottom of a TV screen, that said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call,' the complaint added. According to the complaint, Fox's claim that Newsom lied was 'calculated to provoke outrage and cause Governor Newsom significant harm' by making people less likely to support his causes, donate to his campaigns, or vote for him in elections. 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,' a spokesperson for Fox News told Al Jazeera in an email. In a follow-up, Al Jazeera asked Fox if Watters and his production team fact-checked claims about the phone call before speaking about it – which is industry standard – but the network did not provide clarification. Newsom's punitive damages request is nearly identical to the $787.5m that Fox paid in 2023 to settle Dominion Voting Systems' lawsuit over alleged vote-rigging in the 2020 US presidential election. To prevail in his lawsuit, Newsom would have to show Fox acted with actual malice, meaning it knew its statements were false or had reckless disregard for their truth. According to the New York Times, Newsom would drop the lawsuit if Fox issued a retraction and host Jesse Watters apologised on-air for saying the governor lied about his call with Trump. The governor's office told Al Jazeera that it would not comment because Newsom is pursuing the lawsuit in a personal capacity and not through the office. In an emailed statement, Newsom said, 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences – just like it did in the Dominion case. I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.' Out of Trump's playbook Newsom's lawsuit comes as Trump has gone after news organisations that have been critical of him. He reached a $15m settlement with ABC News after the network made in an inaccurate claim that a jury found Trump liable for rape in the civil case involving E Jean Carroll, rather than sexual assault. The White House also recently went after the network when former White House correspondent Terry Moran called White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller a 'world-class hater'. Moran was later suspended and subsequently dismissed from the network. Trump also sued CBS News for $20bn for the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his Democratic rival Kamala Harris, which was reportedly mediated into a settlement agreement of $20m with parent company Paramount Global, causing concern in the news division. Paramount has a pending merger with Skydance. Trump has also slashed funding for public media, which the White House alleged was 'radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news''.
