By Aleena T Sabu
In the past two decades, digitalisation of migration governance has pushed the European Union to allocate more funding towards its border management than ever. Estimates show that there has been an increase of 94% in the funding allocated to border policies in the year 2021-2027 when compared to the previous cycle of 2014-2020. This increased spending reflects the changing view of securitisation of migration in the EU, with a focus on technology-driven governance. From biometric databases and automated risk scoring to AI-assisted border surveillance, algorithmic systems have become central to European states’ migration governance mechanisms for both migration and asylum governance. While technologies are often regarded as neutral and unbiased by human beings, they also raise issues of transparency, accountability and protection of fundamental rights, especially as algorithmic systems increasingly influence decisions affecting migrants and asylum seekers, such as risk assessment, detention, and asylum determination processes. This blog post will investigate how the increasing use of AI and technologies in border control affects migration governance, with an emphasis on its effects on human rights.
EU’s Smart Borders
Europe’s increasing use of digital infrastructure to govern migration has been driven by the securitisation of migration. Since the early 2000s, various digital systems have been put in place for migration governance between EU and non-EU states, with EUROSUR being the framework that connects all EU member states and facilitates the sharing of information on migrants and asylum seekers. Adopting smart borders that enable interoperability between various databases across member states has become a major element since the increased securitisation of migration from the 2015’s crisis. European member states argue that smart borders make border management more efficient and objective. Automated systems can process large datasets quickly, identify irregular migration patterns and assist in allocating resources. For example, Frontex drones monitor people at sea and share images and location data with the Libyan coast guard, who then intercept them and return them to Libya for asylum processing. A key reason for the EU’s use of AI and other digital technologies at borders is the belief that these systems will make the border procedures more neutral and free from bias by relying on data-driven assessments, standardised criteria, and automated decision-making rather than individual discretion by border officials. Recent reports show that the European Union is pouring millions of euros into developing lie detectors, speech recognition tools and drones for migration governance. These developments reflect a broader transformation in which borders have become increasingly managed by digital infrastructures rather than physical checkpoints. Data, algorithms, and automated decision-making tools now play a key role in identifying, categorising, and monitoring migrants and asylum seekers, even before they physically reach European territory.
Are These Systems Really Neutral?
The idea that algorithmic systems operate in a neutral or purely technical manner is being contested by non-governmental organisations, activists and researchers alike. It is widely known that algorithms are very much shaped by human choices, and would therefore reflect political and social assumptions embedded within the system that has designed and deployed them. The EU uses a Risk-scoring system to classify individuals by looking into their nationality, travel history or other patterns to predict the score, which can, in turn, be subjective due to the data embedded within the system. For example, if people from certain nationalities have historically been flagged more often, the system may learn to treat applicants from those countries as higher risk, reproducing existing biases rather than removing them. Thus, when algorithms have social and political biases within them, they reinforce existing hierarchies and forms of inclusion.
Technologies and Human Rights Violations at Borders
The development of such technologies and algorithmic decision-making at borders poses serious additional human rights concerns. Decisions made by algorithmic systems will rarely contain clear explanations on how they were reached, and this can create significant challenges for an asylum seeker fleeing persecution. The inability to understand or challenge these algorithmic assessments can undermine procedural fairness. Without transparency about how decisions are made, a gap emerges between the migrant’s need for protection and their ability to access it. Most documentation on the working and functioning of AI tools and automated migration management in the EU is kept under wraps, and functions with limited transparency due to issues of security or commercial interests, as the EU claims. As a result, understanding the actual functioning and implications of these technologies remains challenging.
The principle of non-refoulement, which under international law prohibits states from returning individuals to places where they may face persecution or serious harm, is also under threat with the increasing use of technologies. Individuals scored by automated systems can increase the risk of wrongful exclusion of people from high-risk countries by relying on generalised indicators such as nationality, travel routes, or incomplete data rather than the specific circumstances of each case. By failing to capture the complex, context-specific nature of asylum claims, people with genuine protection needs may be wrongly classified as security or migration risks and denied fair access to asylum procedures, resulting in high error rates. This can prevent protection mechanisms from functioning altogether for asylum seekers, a serious concern given the well-documented limitations of predictive technologies in complex humanitarian contexts where biased or incomplete data can lead to disproportionate risk classifications for certain nationalities or social groups. For example, Women and other vulnerable groups face additional risks when automated systems do not take into account the gendered dimensions of displacement, including experiences of gender-based violence. When algorithmic systems prioritise efficiency and categorisation over individualised assessment, they risk overlooking the specific vulnerabilities that often underpin asylum claims.
This issue is exacerbated by the fact that mass surveillance of people through the collection of their biometric data also helps the EU member states to share information with each other about migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. In this context, existing biases embedded within national surveillance and enforcement practices are not confined to a single jurisdiction but are instead circulated and reproduced through interoperable automated governance systems across the EU.
Navigating Between AI and Human Rights
The increasing use of AI and algorithmic systems at European borders, therefore, needs careful scrutiny. Firstly, a rights-centred approach to digital border governance is necessary to ensure that the deployment of digital technologies does not violate migrants’ fundamental rights. This requires embedding safeguards such as transparency and accountability. Ensuring the privacy and welfare of asylum seekers must remain at the core of any policy decisions so that the process remains fair and equitable to all in need of asylum.
Secondly, Automated systems must be subject to meaningful human oversight. Initial AI-driven assessments ought to be complemented by informed human review, with the authority to question, modify, or override automated outputs to ensure fair and accountable decision-making. While current systems in place have an option for human check, the person behind the checks must have the genuine capacity and authority to also override the system.
Thirdly, greater transparency is needed in the operations and mechanisms of border technologies such as iBorderCtrl, a technology used to detect deception during border interviews. The technology, which uses an avatar shown onscreen that conducts an interview with travellers and gives them a score used to determine whether they should gain entry into the EU, is still being tested in some countries. The problem with such technologies is that there is no understanding of how people are being assessed and on what basis. Given the lack of transparency in the working mechanisms of such technologies, there is a risk of racial profiling of certain categories of people.
Finally, legal frameworks and their effective implementation are necessary to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees have access to their rights and are aware of them as well. Existing legal frameworks should ensure that individuals, including asylum seekers, have the effective ability to challenge algorithmic decisions affecting their rights through access to information, human review, and meaningful avenues for appeal; rights which, while formally recognised in some jurisdictions, remain unevenly implemented in practice. At the same time, these asylum seekers and refugees must also be aware of their legal rights and how to access them, for example, language barriers can often hinder an applicant’s right to information and this can affect their application process and access to the law.
Digital technologies at borders will only continue to grow as human beings continue to engineer new technologies, however the important question of how they will affect and shape the lives of asylum seekers remains. If digital technologies at the borders are implemented without adequate safeguards, algorithmic systems risk reinforcing exclusionary practices and undermining protections for those seeking refuge. Ensuring that technological innovation is aligned with human rights principles is therefore essential to maintaining the integrity of asylum systems in an increasingly digital age.
About the author
Aleena T Sabu is an independent researcher with a Master’s degree in Politics and International Relations and a Bachelor’s in Political Science. Her research focuses on migration, gender, and identity formation, with particular attention to the experiences of marginalized groups during migration journeys. She has conducted research on migration policies and global mobility at the Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA), and her dissertation explores the EU’s digital border management practices. Aleena is committed to highlighting gendered violence in migration and advocating for comprehensive protection mechanisms. She is currently engaged in projects related to migration, gender, and policy analysis.
European Studies Review 