New Technologies in Migration Management —Pros and Cons

Prompt: Is it likely that the growing reliance on new technologies in migration management will exacerbate or mitigate the “inescapable predicament” that Andreas identifies?

Andreas delves into the evolving landscape of border control, where borders are being reshaped to facilitate access for desirable entries while deterring Clandestine Transnational Actors (CTAs).

Clandestine Transnational Actors (CTAs) refer to individuals or groups who operate across international borders while concealing their identities or intentions. These actors often engage in activities such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, arms trafficking, or other illicit trades. They operate covertly, exploiting legal loopholes or using clandestine methods to evade detection by law enforcement authorities.

The increasing reliance on technology will both heighten and alleviate the unavoidable dilemma of borders functioning as both barriers and filters to regulate desirable entries.

Allow me to clarify by examining the advantages and disadvantages of employing technology in migration management.

Advantages of Technology in Migration Management

Artificial Intelligence

Technology such as AI algorithms are meant to increase efficiency, as they streamline repetitive tasks, especially with large amounts of paperwork such as with asylum seekers.

This as a result can help cut costs too which will help mitigate the costs attached to migration management. Through AI, it could potentially mitigate and better filter out those who might be of concern and those who might not.

Civil Society

When we consider that technology will modernize states and international organizations’ traditional practices and therefore, assumed to improve their practices. Civil society can support more refugees through social media and shortening distances for rescue operations.

Along the same line, mobile phones have been revolutionary in organizing migratory routes in war-torn countries. As UNHCR wrote “Water, phone, food,” in that order.’ According to them, “refugees use smartphones and social media platforms in five primary ways — communication, translation, information, navigation, and representation ”.

With better communication practices in place and hyper-connectivity, technology can be useful in providing key insights and information on the migrants. technology can also help States be better informed and make better and more appropriate decisions and resource allocations.

Disadvantages of Technology in Migration Management

AI & State Asymmetries

On the other hand, in International Migration Management in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, Ana Beduschi states that Artificial intelligence can deepen the existing asymmetries between states.

The Global South countries that might not have full access to these technologies will be affected and this will contribute to the growing digital divide between those with technological capabilities and those without.

Consequently, these countries will be isolated and left behind playing catch up to better migration management, struggling as other countries utilize technology to better manage themselves.

Hence, countries with such technologies will benefit from migration management, whereas others will not.

Social Injustices

Technologies might exacerbate these social injustices by stereotyping people, especially if they contain undetectable inaccuracies and mistakes which can lead to unlawful discrimination.

These errors could “accidentally misidentify a migrant as a terrorist or miscalculate the risk of ill-treatment upon deportation to their country of origin”.

An overreliance on technologies without adequate systems and controls (checks and balances) could be detrimental to human rights and also work against allowing more desirable entries into the country.

This is even worse when considering that technologies have the potential to decline one’s application if they match with a suspected terrorist, even if it cannot be proved. But because we place so much trust in the computers ‘objectiveness’, we forget that the process of how the machine reached its result is unknown. This could lead to inaccurate judgments, and ultimately, the errors could be so detrimental as to risk people’s livelihoods and human rights.

Evidence-Based Policy

Technology is supposed to help with evidence-based policy making — scientific evidence is useful but too much precedence on quantitative evidence can be detrimental to qualitative data.

This is especially true when you consider that poor data quality can produce poor outcomes. An AI algorithm led to racial discrimination in judicial decision-making by predicting the likelihood of reoffending behavior. In Canada, the algorithm falsely flagged Black defendants as future criminals, wrongly labeling them at twice the rate as the White defendants.

Diversity in Data

The gaps in data, especially with ethnic minorities, could filter out desirable minorities who might be misunderstood due to the lack of data in the technologies used, and hence reinforce the existing patterns of discrimination.

When considering some of these technologies, such as face recognition technologies, it is important to understand that they have difficulties recognizing people with darker skin types and also genders, specifically women. The technologies lack the diversity of data in the training of algorithms. There are widely documented biases in these automated decisions which have produced biased results too.

And if technology is used to assess if someone is lying or a system is skeptical of a person — Petra Molnar is not wrong to ask “Can an automated decision-making system account for trauma and its effects on an asylum seeker’s memory (or behavior), or for cultural differences in communication?”.

Technologies therefore can be opaque and unpredictable, which could work to the detriment of filtering out undesirables or acting as barriers rather than filtering for legitimate purposes.

Apolitical or not?

Petra Molnar is not wrong to summarise that data collection is not an apolitical exercise. It’s not as neutral as they want to make it seem. It’s not this exercise in gathering information but rather a terrain submerged under power dynamics and potential for abuse.

When powerful entities wield the authority to collect data without oversight or accountability, it becomes a tool for reinforcing existing power structures and perpetuating discrimination against marginalized communities

This is especially true because data collection occurs when powerful countries and international organizations collect information without regulated methods or accountability, which is a deeply problematic historical practice for marginalized groups.

It is not so much about migrants but technologies problematic use in tracking groups of people.

Rwanda

The tracking of Tutsis in ethnicity registries played a significant role in the events leading up to the Rwandan genocide in 1994. The collection of ethnic data contributed to the identification and targeting of Tutsi individuals, leading to mass atrocities.

China

The Chinese government has faced criticism for its extensive surveillance and data collection practices, particularly in regions like Xinjiang, where Uighur Muslims are subjected to mass surveillance, arbitrary detention, and other human rights abuses.

Israel

The Israeli government has been accused of collecting vast amounts of data on Palestinian populations in the occupied territories, using surveillance technologies to monitor and control their movements.

As revealed by Amnesty, they even introduced an “experimental facial recognition system known as Red Wolf to track Palestinians and automate harsh restrictions on their freedom of movement,”. The Palestinians live in what Human Rights Watch has deemed an “Open-air prison” for the past 17 years and technology empowers Israel to be able to do this.

The United States of America

A vast amount of data on Brown/Black and Muslim people was collected post-9/11 in the US. Anyone with a supposed connection to Islamic terrorism. This led to gross human rights violations in the United States and Guantanamo Bay. Over 800 Muslim men and boys were held without charge or trial since 2002. Torture survivors, physical and psychological trauma affected a multitude of boys and men.

These cases serve as stark reminders of the dangers of unchecked data collection, symbolizing racial and religious injustice, abuse, and disregard for the rule of law.

On the United Nations

Then there are also the issues of how International reputable organizations such as the UN collect data. Who holds them accountable? The UN has been collecting biodata since 2002. The UNHCR ID Card is a “golden ticket to food, shelter and education”, but it costs you “the rights to your own photograph, iris scans, fingerprints, personal and family history, health data, and all available prior legal documentation”. The data helps with resettlement, digitizing tracking, and even assisting.

But what do they do with that data? How do they protect it? Do they ever sell it? Is all of this ethical? Or how ethical?

The UN is so complex, where would you even begin and how long would it take to find out, in such a large bureaucratic organization that requires approval from a myriad of bodies and member states?

All the power dynamics, lack of consent, and vulnerability somehow leave a sour taste on the issue of technology and migration legal policy concerns.

Certain tools, while aiming to bolster border security, raise ethical concerns by potentially targeting individuals who could benefit from migration opportunities. However, they also offer benefits such as enhanced security and streamlined processes.

Consequently, these indiscriminate surveillance technologies risk perpetuating discrimination. Balancing these benefits with ethical considerations is crucial to safeguard fundamental rights.

The prompt of this essay asked — “Is it likely that the growing reliance on new technologies in migration management will exacerbate or mitigate the “inescapable predicament”?

Unless we figure out better ways to regulate these technologies and the bodies employing them, the answer is yes, they do exacerbate the “inescapable predicament”.

Bruce Ackerman, Social Justice in the Liberal State, 1980, pg 95, week 2

Ana Beduschi, International migration management in the age of artificial intelligence pg 577

Etienne Piguet, “The ‘Refugee Crisis’ in Europe: Shortening Distances, Containment and Asymmetry of Rights — a Tentative Interpretation of the 2015–16 Events,” 2021, pg 1581

Ana Beduschi, International migration management in the age of artificial intelligence pg 576

Petra Molnar, “New Technologies in Migration: Human Rights Impacts,” (2019) Pg 8