What systems or reforms have experts proposed to prevent misidentification and wrongful detention by ICE and CBP?
Executive summary
Experts and advocacy groups have proposed a mix of statutory, budgetary, oversight, transparency, and programmatic reforms to reduce misidentification and wrongful detention by ICE and CBP, ranging from curbing DHS reprogramming authority to limiting surveillance data use and expanding alternatives to detention [1] [2] [3]. Congressional investigations and civil-society reports argue these fixes must be paired with independent inspections, stronger accountability mechanisms, and restrictions on private detention contracts to be effective [4] [5] [6].
1. Why reform is being demanded: fragmented oversight and documented wrongful detentions
Reports from congressional subcommittees and immigrant-rights groups find that ICE and CBP operate within a fragmented oversight architecture that has permitted U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike to be detained without adequate legal authority or transparent review, fueling calls for structural reform [4] [5]. Advocacy organizations and legal service providers say the result is rising detention populations, profit-seeking private contractors, and a pattern of rights abuses that prompt policy proposals to prevent misidentification and wrongful custody [1] [6] [7].
2. Budgetary levers: block reprogramming and stop funding expansion
Several reform proposals focus on Congress using appropriations power to limit ICE and CBP by prohibiting DHS reprogramming and transfers that expand detention capacity, and by blocking new funds for private detention contractors—steps advocates call the “bare minimum” to stop further militarization and reduce wrongful detentions tied to expanded operations [1] [6]. Human Rights First and the National Immigration Law Center emphasize that without curbs on funding flows, detention networks can grow independently of legal or oversight reforms [6] [1].
3. Independent inspections and stronger oversight regimes
Advocates and oversight reports recommend bolstering independent, transparent inspection regimes because the current system’s fragmentation hinders accountability; targeted congressional oversight, mandatory inspections, and clearer reporting requirements are proposed to identify and correct misidentifications and unlawful detentions [5] [4]. Congressional dashboards and subcommittee investigations are already cataloguing misconduct categories—use of force, wrongful arrest/detention, and sensitive-location enforcement—to create public evidence trails that could feed reform [8] [4].
4. Restricting surveillance and data-sharing that drive misidentification
Digital-surveillance contracts and broad access to license-plate readers, phone-extraction tools, and commercial databases are singled out as major drivers of erroneous targeting; civil-liberty groups urge strict limits on ICE/CBP purchases and use of such data, greater transparency about data sources, and legal constraints on how commercial surveillance feeds are queried and retained [2]. The Electronic Frontier Foundation documents rising device searches and ALPR contracts that create new vectors for mistaken matches and overreach [2].
5. Programmatic alternatives: expand ATD and reduce prehearing incarceration
Experts point to enlarging Alternatives to Detention (ATD) and other case-management approaches as concrete ways to reduce wrongful custody by keeping people out of jails while their claims proceed; ICE’s own reporting shows historical use of ATD alongside detention statistics, and commentators note that detaining more people until initial hearings increases pressure to forgo claims [3] [9]. Shifting resources toward community-based supervision, electronic case management with limits, and humanitarian triage are recurrent recommendations in the literature [3] [9].
6. Accountability: independent complaint mechanisms, remedies, and limits on contractors
Proposals include creating genuinely independent complaint and investigative bodies outside ICE/CBP chains of command, statutory remedies for wrongly detained persons, suspension or termination clauses for private contractors tied to rights violations, and mandatory public reporting of detentions of U.S. citizens—measures tied directly to preventing repeat misidentifications [5] [4] [6]. Existing DHS descriptions of oversight offices note some structures, but advocates argue current arrangements lack independence and teeth [10] [5].
7. Political obstacles, trade-offs, and what the sources do not settle
The reforms outlined face clear political headwinds: appropriations riders, partisan control of oversight committees, and competing priorities about border security versus civil liberties; advocacy groups frame funding blocks as essential, while DHS and enforcement proponents argue operational flexibility is needed—this tension shapes what reforms are politically viable [1] [6] [8]. The sources document proposals and problems but do not provide empirical consensus on which single reform alone would eliminate misidentification; implementation design and enforcement capacity remain open questions in the available reporting [5] [4].