They were just standing motionless, responding to inquiries, and waiting—they weren’t yelling, sobbing, or making a disturbance. Yet, the system noticed anything. A micro-expression, perhaps. Perhaps a slight lag in reaction. That digital suspicion was enough.
In recent months, a growing number of legal immigrants have been stopped, detained, or denied reentry into the United States after being alerted by AI systems meant to evaluate behavior. These technologies, which were designed to look for emotional abnormalities, are now included in a sophisticated border toolset that combines social media monitoring, vocal tone measurement, and facial analysis. On paper, they guarantee heightened security. In reality, they frequently mistake fear for dishonesty.
Key Factual Context
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Issue | Legal immigrants flagged for emotional instability by AI systems |
| Technologies Used | Emotion recognition, AI lie detectors, social media scans |
| Impacted Groups | Green card holders, visa holders, lawful residents |
| Civil Liberties Concerns | Lack of due process, opaque criteria, algorithmic bias |
| International Context | EU bans emotional AI profiling at borders under 2024 AI Act |
| Legal Pushback | Advocacy groups call for transparency and algorithmic accountability |
By employing sentiment recognition technologies, immigration officials are issued a behavioral risk assessment before the first passport is checked. These ratings, which are influenced by eye movements, facial tension, and online mood, determine whether an individual is rejected outright or subjected to further screening. Lawful permanent residents—people with families, occupations, and extensive histories in the country—are suddenly considered as suspects based on invisible calculations.
One man I spoke to, an Indian software architect with a green card, had returned from his father’s burial abroad. At the airport, a kiosk tagged him for “emotional inconsistency.” He was taken to secondary inspection, questioned for five hours, and told that his social media activity caused worry. His posts? Reflections about grief, intermingled with excerpts from poetry. No charges. No misconduct. Just flagged emotion.
Border technology grew quickly throughout the pandemic. AI-enabled lie detection systems—some portable, some integrated into kiosks—were implemented as test projects. They were promoted by its developers as extremely effective instruments that might simplify decision-making. But unlike human police, these technologies don’t consider jetlag, stress, or cultural expression. A fatigued parent can be tagged as evasive. A silent wanderer starts to suspect others. Anxiety becomes algorithmic evidence.
These presumptions have important ramifications. Individuals who followed every legal step, paid every fee, and observed every obligation are now at risk of being sidelined by a machine’s emotional guesswork. Additionally, because the systems are proprietary, the individuals they impact hardly ever understand why they were halted. There’s no clear appeals mechanism. No transcript to contest.
Over the past decade, governments have leaned largely on technology to handle increased border traffic. The objective is understandable: eliminate human error, boost speed, discover fraud faster. However, a warehouse shipment is not what border entry is. It’s a highly personal checkpoint—one where tension and emotion are typically natural responses, not warning flags.
Surprisingly, the European Union has taken the opposite course. The 2024 EU AI Act forbids member states from utilizing emotion recognition software in immigration-related scenarios. There, regulators found that these kinds of technologies are especially prone to mistakes, especially when used in ethnic settings. For the EU, the possibility for prejudice outweighed the promised efficiency.
In contrast, the U.S. has pushed up its AI programs. Programs like “Catch and Revoke” allow officials to retroactively strip visas after analyzing online conduct. One visa holder apparently lost their status when an AI model spotted a tweet criticizing U.S. politics—a message posted five years previously. Nobody examined the subtlety. Nobody followed up with a question. The decision came in the form of a letter.
Emotion detection has great potential for early-stage AI developers. The ability to map human affect and intent through data streams could transform customer service, mental health, and security. However, there should be very little room for error at borders, where choices pertain to identity and belonging.
I observed an officer at one port of entry navigating via a tablet that was powered by an emotion detecting platform. A row of color-coded bars labeled “Calm,” “Agitated,” and “Uncertain” appeared next to a traveler’s name on the screen. The officer nodded, waved the traveler forward, then halted on the next name. The bar for “Anxiety” lit orange. He pressed a button. secondary examination.
Human Rights Watch and the ACLU are two civil rights organizations that have submitted queries calling for increased openness. Their worry isn’t only about specific cases. The structural change in who and how decisions are made is the focus. When computers, rather than qualified cops, are guiding the process, subjectivity is rebranded as science. However, the richness of human mood during a stressful crossing is not captured by any dataset.
Through smart legal action, certain advocacy groups are aiming to reveal the basic logic of these institutions. So far, development has been slow. According to agencies, national security exemptions safeguard the models. Intellectual property is cited by developers. Travelers are left in the midst, unable to perceive or question the laws that are currently influencing their life.
What makes this transition more troubling is the silence around it. Until they are affected, the majority of individuals are unaware that these systems exist. There are no warning indicators, no disclosure statements, no recourse methods. You’re simply told that you’ve been selected for further assessment. Or worse—you receive a revocation notice weeks later, with no reason at all.
By integrating AI into border decision-making, the U.S. has undeniably increased its data-processing capability. But without protections, what begins as a security measure becomes a sorting mechanism that disproportionately punishes the disadvantaged. Fear, tiredness, and even melancholy might now be misconstrued as instability. And in a process as consequential as immigration, that’s a costly misinterpretation.
