CBP Letter Prompts the Question: Is DHS Criminalizing Compassion and Association?
Authorities at the U.S. border are arguing that journalists who report on asylum seekers, and the lawyers and activists who advise them, are legitimate targets for investigation under 8 U.S. Code §1324 for the crime of illegally “encouraging” aliens to cross the border unlawfully. This alleged crime justifies the targeting of these individuals for surveillance, and may be tied to the search and detention of their electronic devices at ports of entry. That’s the message U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) delivered in a May 9th letter to the Center for Democracy & Technology, which responded to the coalition letter we sent the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about a pattern of enforcement activity that appears to target journalists, lawyers and activists associated with asylum seekers.
8 U.S. Code §1324 makes it a federal crime to bring in or encourage an undocumented person to come into the U.S., or to harbor, transport, or conceal such persons after they have arrived. There has long been concern that this statute could be used to chill and retaliate against organizing, political dissent, and the provision of aid to individuals seeking entry into the U.S. as well as those maintaining unlawful status in the U.S. The assertion by CBP that activists, lawyers, and journalists were targeted and harassed due to investigations of possible violations of this statute appears to bear out this concern. It cannot be that anyone who associates with asylum seekers is immediately viewed with suspicion and is subject to surveillance and enhanced scrutiny at ports of entry—including electronic device searches.
Recentreportsdemonstrate how blunt an instrument this statute can be. A liberal wielding of this statute will deter acts of compassion, such as providing a person in need water or a ride to the emergency room. It will also chill the exercise of associational activities such as reporting on the treatment of migrants or providing them legal counsel, humanitarian aid, or religious services.
Moving Forward
While we appreciate that CBP responded to us promptly, their letter is devoid of answers to the questions and requests we posed. It fails to address key issues such as the training materials provided to CBP related to First Amendment-protected activities, the agency’s policy regarding encounters with journalists, and whether DHS communicated with foreign governments about activists, lawyers, and journalists in order to restrict their travel. Instead of addressing these issues, CBP’s response invites one more question: what predicate showing is necessary to investigate someone for a violation of §1324?
SeveralCongressionalinquiries are still outstanding, and we hope Congress will press DHS for information if the agency continues to be unresponsive. The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties referred our letter to the DHS Inspector General, which is already reviewing CBP’s conduct. We hope the DHS IG will also investigate the activity of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which, as we noted in our letter, created and disseminated a spreadsheet of “Anti-Trump protests” in New York City.
DHS and its agencies must be more forthcoming and transparent about the operation of their investigations and more respectful of the rights of people who both interact with non-citizens and bring electronic devices across the border. DHS should not be allowed to abuse its authority such that it tramples upon the exercise of First and Fourth Amendment rights.
Coalition Urges Senate Not to Let Companies Waive Financial Regulations for AI
CDT joined AI Now Institute, American Civil Liberties Union, and several organizations dedicated to tech policy, consumer protection, and civil rights in a letter to Senate leadership and the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee opposing the “AI Innovation Labs” language in Sec. 10509 of the CLARITY Act.
Not All Guardrails Are Created Equal: Comparing Content Safety and Copyright Filtering
As courts and policymakers work through questions about chatbot liability, they should be wary of analogies that flatten meaningful technical differences. Copyright filtering and safety intervention share real challenges around ambiguity and evasion, but they diverge in what each control must assess, how each manifests over the course of a conversation, and how much can be verified from the outside.
CDT-led Coalition Calls for Transparency for White House AI Framework
CDT and Americans for Responsible Innovation led a broad, bipartisan coalition of over two dozen civil society groups in calling on the White House to release its Framework for review of frontier AI models.
CDT Amicus Brief Calls on Fourth Circuit to Rein In Geofence Warrants
Earlier this year the Supreme Court ruled in Chatrie v United States that the Fourth Amendment protected all cell phone location information, which CDT lauded as a landmark decision, but sent the case back down to the Fourth Circuit to assess the propriety of the geofence warrant at issue.