In an attempt to compromise with President Trump and his incessant demand for a physical wall on the southwest border of the United States, democrats proposed a bolster to border surveillance using new technologies, thereby building a “smart wall” along the border in place of a material wall. These new technologies would consist of license plate readers (ALPRs); drones; and biometrics which includes facial and iris scans, voice prints, and DNA collection; these technologies would be used on peoples who are traveling, immigrating to the United States, and peoples living on either side of the border. All of which begs of the question, which is the “smart wall” constitutionally liberal?
First, we must examine the targets of the “smart wall.” The power of the government is only legitimate when exercised on people who, through rational choice, consent to being governed. The governed and the government enter into a compact–the government protects the life, liberty, and property of the governed whilst the governed relinquishes some of their inherent human rights in exchange. Because humans are naturally free, equal, and independent beings, they must consensually submit to the privileges of governed society. The protections afforded by the U.S. government are reserved for the body politic, for its subjects, and not for peoples who are traveling through, are non-citizens, nor for people who do not inhabit that country AND are not within its borders; these peoples have not entered into a compact with the US government and are not subjects of it. Rather, they are subjects of some other government. While they may oblige themselves to the laws of the US government while traveling, they are not subjects of it.
Secondly, the means of the “smart wall” involve invasion of certain liberties. Surveillance is an exercise of governmental power over its peoples. ALPRs and drones collect data of location and takes unsolicited photos of peoples and their property, invading their privacy and potentially the right to not self-incriminate via non-consensual photos. The collection of personal data such as facial scans and DNA collection is analogous to seizure of property, it is seizure of bodily property. Peoples, being rational and free beings, have bodily autonomy; they have ownership of their body—it is their property. Collecting biological data from non-consenting peoples is an infringement on their liberty. However, if the peoples are subjects of the government, it may be reasoned that, under certain circumstances, by entering into contract with the government, they have shed a certain degree of that liberty. But, considering the targets of the “smart wall” are not subjects of the power of the United States, collection of this data would be infringing on their rights, and an overextension of the powers of the United States.
Lastly, power which the government does not have the right to, which peoples did not consent to, is arbitrary, moves beyond the law, or is used to harass and impoverish peoples, is tyranny. The United States seizing bodily property and infringing on privacy rights of non-subjects is tyrannical. The means of surveillance adopted by the “smart wall” necessitate consent from the surveilled, they must have submitted to governmental power by entering into a compact with that government. The power of the United States would be extending itself beyond its borders. Peoples who are traveling through or are not US citizens would be victims of tyranny at the hands of the “smart wall” and have the right to resist or demand retribution. However, a physical wall would not be invading on their rights as free peoples or as subjects of another government. The physical barrier would not be exerting non-consensual power, collecting property, invading freedom of conscience, or otherwise infringing on the liberties on non-citizens.