Digitalization of EU Borders: Igniting Algorithmic Discrimination

Migration is a Part of Human Existence

Migration is a core function of human behaviour, as countless people have moved from one place to another throughout the ages. This includes the human migration from East Africa that began the spread of the Homo sapiens unto all continents to an Erasmus student exchange in Europe.

The reasons for migrating are numerous and highly contextual to the migrating group or individual. Europe offers insights into this dynamic as it has experienced many migration flows in recent years. This allows for a meaningful comparison of how the European Union develops its policies and whether it treats different migrant groups in other ways, as their backgrounds and origins may influence how they are perceived and responded to by policymakers.

The Attempt to Manage Migration

The current global economic order significantly influences various movements, as both individual and state-level interests are often shaped by economic and security concerns. However, these issues can vary greatly between migrants fleeing poverty and conflict and the countries that receive them.

Recent years have shown the increasing attempt of the European Union to create a “European Fortress'' to curb migration movements from the Middle Eastern, Central Asian, and African countries(1).

Since the Mediterranean Sea is the main geographical barrier between the wealthy European countries and the regions mentioned above, most securitisation efforts are focused on it. While physical obstacles such as fences are being put in place to hinder individuals from crossing the border between an EU and non-EU country, an intense border digitalisation effort has been put into motion to ''improve'' the management of the migration process and increase efficiency.  

Digitisation of the European Border

New technological innovations, methods, and machines have been developed in recent years, and many offer benefits to society, as well as drawbacks. The implementation of new technologies in the border management of the European Union can be seen as divisive. Among these measures is the extensive use of the EURODAC (2) database, which holds the biometric data of registered migrants across EU member states; the deployment of AI technologies, such as facial recognition, to classify individuals and assist in asylum decisions; and the growing reliance on surveillance tools like drones and sensors capable of detecting heartbeats(3). Of course, improved communication tools help the different border agencies to coordinate their actions and thus potentially hinder the movement of migration into the Union.

Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

Arguments About the Securitisation and Digitalisation of the Border

Implementing bodies such as FRONTEX(4), the EU’s border management agency that assists member states in handling incoming migrants, and other European organisations naturally support these developments. They often frame these tools as ways to enhance border processing efficiency and improve the humanitarian response to migrants.

On the other hand, critics highlight various aspects that these technologies are not designed to support people at risk during their migration or support them with the process but rather to lower the volume that needs to be “dealt with” on the borders of the European Union and to deport them back quicker than before(5).

Analysing the official reports of the different agencies, the argumentation of the critics does gain validity. The success of these organisations is often measured by the number of people they return to non-EU countries and by how cost-efficiently they carry out processing and deportations(6). Moreover, the recommendation papers of the European Commission also reveal that the incentives for the new technologies are rooted in curbing “illegal migration” while allowing highly skilled individuals in. It thus becomes clear that migrants, particularly those from Muslim-majority and Sub-Saharan countries, are often portrayed as a threat or as people who take advantage of benefits meant for EU citizens, such as free movement within the Schengen area, which are then seen as needing to be restricted.

Breaking the Law and Exploiting Migrants

Tools such as AI, large databases, and sophisticated surveillance are attractive to the Union because they facilitate the efficient categorisation of financially “valuable” and “non-valuable” humans. The claimed humanitarian benefits of these tools are easily challenged, as even a brief look at their use shows that migrants' privacy is completely overlooked during mandatory screenings, where their biometrics are collected, their bodies examined for health risks, and they are subjected to intense questioning to assess any potential threat to national security (7).

This process is done without the consent of the affected individuals, and when consent is asked for, the migrants often do not understand how or why their data is stored and used (8).

The migrant essentially is stripped of any sense of privacy, and their data is used without consent to improve the border management tools. The potential data theft from third parties is additionally a glaring issue as these can be stolen by cyberattacks to sell off the most sensitive information, such as health issues. Moreover, even though using AI at the border may speed up decision-making processes, its quality depends on the input data used to train the tool. These are often outdated and contain racial stereotypes that increase the difficulties of entering the EU by rejecting entrance based on false identifications (9). Considering that there is also no accountability about the decisions of AI and how or who to keep accountable for harmful choices makes it less believable that artificial intelligence has any humanitarian aspect.

Finally, the surveillance technology that is used to track and predict the movements of the migration groups originates from the military and frequently uses terms such as “enemy” for migrants(10). Combining this with the corporations that financially benefit from the securitisation of the borders allows for the conclusion that migrants are exploited for their private data to train the new tech and profit with the implementation of these tools while ignoring their right to asylum.

Photo by Mortaza Shahed on Unsplash

A Change of Perspective

As previously mentioned, both the migrant and the state are partially driven by economic incentives. The mode of production and capital-increasing means are owned by the elites of a nation who compete domestically and internationally to increase productivity and profit for themselves. This requires a steady stream of labourers and highly skilled individuals to sustain or increase production. Combining this with the framing that migrants supposedly pose a threat to the security of the EU criminalises them for attempting to escape poverty or death while also profiting from them.

The treatment of Ukrainian refugees does show the ability of European border management to be humanitarian-driven and beneficial for migrants, as their asylum was quickly granted, and they were openly welcomed into different countries.

The Union needs to keep to its ethical standards and international law and cease the ill-treatment of migrants. Ideally, it would conduct meaningful, sustainable and collaborative economic projects with the countries from which people flee to provide proper living conditions with local governments, instead of exploiting other states and then abusing its fleeing population. The European Union can either continue its behaviour and speed up the dismantlement of the so-called “rule-based world order” or finally treat all fleeing and migrating humans the same without any discriminative actions against them.

References

1- Reporter, G. S. (2024, October 11). Fortress Europe keeps cruelly raising its walls against the global south. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/11/europe-migration-asylum-seekers

2- European Commission. (2024). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures to strengthen the European Union’s crisis management capacity. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2024%3A126%3AFIN

3- Frontex. (2020). AI research study: Artificial intelligence-based capabilities in the European border and coast guard community. Retrieved from https://www.frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Research/Frontex_AI_Research_Study_2020_final_report.pdf

4- Sarantaki, A. M. (2023). Frontex and the rising of a new border control culture in Europe. Routledge.

5- Bircan, T., & Korkmaz, E. E. (2021). Big data for whose sake? Governing migration through artificial intelligence. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-5.

6- Dumbrava, C. (2025, January). Measuring irregular migration and returns in the EU (PE 767.210). European Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/767210/EPRS_BRI(2025)767210_EN.pdf

7- European Council on Refugees and Exiles. (2020, December). Screening Regulation: Fundamental rights risks at the EU’s borders. https://ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Policy-Note-30.pdf

8- Amnesty International. (2021, September 8). Joint letter: Fundamental rights concerns about the EURODAC reform. European Institutions Office. https://www.amnesty.eu/news/joint-letter-fundamental-rights-concerns-about-the-eurodac-reform/

9- Beduschi, A. (2021). International migration management in the age of artificial intelligence. Migration Studies, 9(3), 576-596.

10- Bello, V., & Léonard, S. (2023). The spiralling of the securitisation of migration in the European Union. In Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003366782

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein belong solely to the columnist and do not represent the official position of our think-tank. Humanotions cannot be held liable for any consequences arising from this content. Content published on Humanotions may contain links to third-party sources. Humanotions is not responsible for the content of these external links. Please refer to our Legal Notices & Policies page for legal details and our Guidelines For Republishing page for republication terms.