By John Q. Hosedrinker 
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has uploaded over 1.5 million DNA profiles, including those of children as young as four, to the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) since 2020. This represents a massive increase in genetic surveillance, with most profiles collected from migrants not accused of felonies. Experts raise concerns about the expansive nature of this practice and its potential impact on privacy and the targeting of immigrant communities. The CBP asserts that DNA collection aids in border security efforts, while critics argue that the loose definition of “detained” in the immigration context allows for widespread, unchecked collection. The collected DNA is stored indefinitely by the FBI.
Read the original article here
US immigration authorities collecting DNA from children and storing it in a criminal database raises serious legal and ethical concerns. The immediate problem is the illegality of such actions; evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible in court. This means that if these children were to ever be involved in a criminal proceeding later in life, any case relying on this DNA evidence could be completely dismissed, even if they were undeniably guilty. This not only undermines the legal process, but it also represents a significant failure of law enforcement planning, potentially jeopardizing future investigations for decades to come.
The practice also carries disturbing implications for the future. Some worry this is a “testing of the waters,” a gradual expansion of DNA collection from criminals to ultimately include the entire citizenry. This parallels the increasingly pervasive collection of digital data, suggesting a trajectory toward mandatory DNA identification for all under some future pretext of enhanced security. Such a scenario raises profound questions regarding privacy and potential misuse of personal genetic information. The scale and scope of such a hypothetical future scenario seem almost dystopian in their implications.
The relevance of DNA to immigration status is also questionable. While some may try to justify this on the basis of identifying potential criminal activity, there’s no inherent connection between DNA and immigration. This fact is made clear by considering that long-term residents of the US, across various ethnic backgrounds, are as likely to have their DNA collected, regardless of citizenship. The act of collecting the DNA of children seems particularly egregious, as the link between their immigration status and any possible future criminality is tenuous at best.
The claim that the authorities don’t plan on using this DNA in court seems disingenuous. While there may be other means to use it, for instance deportation, it’s difficult to understand why the database would be used if not for some type of legal process. The possibility of using this DNA in some sort of parallel construction to build cases in the future seems inevitable; a process where illegally obtained evidence is used to create leads that lead to legally obtained evidence is something of a legal loophole.
The argument that the ends justify the means – catching criminals – is a slippery slope. Even if the DNA leads to the apprehension of future criminals, it would still violate the rights of those whose DNA was collected illegally in the first place. The fact that a serial killer was caught using familial DNA from a pap smear, while potentially effective, doesn’t legitimize the current situation; the line between acceptable methods and blatant disregard for legal procedure is blurred when the basic rights of children are violated. The potential for abuse of power, and the erosion of public trust in law enforcement, far outweigh any perceived benefit.
Furthermore, the legal precedent surrounding DNA collection is not straightforward. The Supreme Court’s ruling in *Maryland v. King*, which upheld suspicionless DNA collection from those arrested for serious crimes, is often cited, but the context of that case is different from that of children detained during immigration processes. The decision weighed the government’s interest against the degree of privacy intrusion, but the unique vulnerabilities of children in this context merit a separate consideration of what constitutes a reasonable search. Ignoring existing legal precedent regarding illegal evidence collection is problematic. It’s also crucial to note the role of the judge in determining the admissibility of evidence, and not simply the jury’s consideration of it.
Ultimately, the collection of DNA from children in immigration processes and their subsequent inclusion in a criminal database is alarming on many levels. The illegality of the act, the potential for future abuse, the questionable relevance to immigration status, and the ethical concerns surrounding the treatment of vulnerable children are all serious issues that necessitate immediate review and potential legal action. This practice raises troubling questions about the state’s respect for the rule of law and the rights of individuals, even before they may have committed any crime. Ignoring these concerns could have lasting ramifications on the American legal system and public trust.