Organised by Aapti Institute and Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH
On 20 September, Aapti Institute and Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH organised an in-person, closed-door event in New York on the sidelines of UNGA’s Summit of the Future event. The event brought together stakeholders from civil society organisations, academia, private sector and multilateral organisations working at the migration x technology intersection, to uncover the challenges and pathways to build a migrant-oriented, rights-preserving and equitable digital ecosystem.
We set out the discussion by broadly highlighting 3 main objectives:
Examining the intersection of digital rights, data rights and migrant rights
Building bridges among stakeholders in the migration ecosystem, identifying shared challenges
Encouraging community-oriented innovation of technologies in the migration ecosystem
These were anchor points for the discussion, and the following sections below cover main highlights. Having conducted the discussion under the Chatham House Rules, attributions to speakers or organisations have not been made and points of intervention stated in this readback are anonymised.
Discussing the GDC and the convergence of migrant rights in the digital context:
Bearing in tow the ongoing negotiations around the Global Digital Compact (GDC) at the time, the session kicked off with members from multilateral organisations sharing perspectives on the potential of a document like the GDC, and what it could offer for vulnerable populations like migrants, refugees and people on the move.
Citing growing geopolitical tensions, climate change and the rise of conflicts in recent months, multilateral organisations displayed a deep concern about the growing efforts that would be required to support forcibly displaced people in the upcoming years. There was acknowledgement about the need for a proactive approach to thinking about the role of technology in these situations by working to create digital infrastructure that serves operational needs while preserving the rights of people on the move by safeguarding their dignity and privacy. The GDC is applicable to all stakeholders within the ecosystem, but emphasis was placed on nation-states and the need for them to place migrants at the core of digital development when building tools being used in migration management.
Participants from civil society organisations highlighted that even though the GDC raises the bar on priorities such as access to digital infrastructure and digital freedom, it fails to recognise the need for states to refrain from the use of mass surveillance and ensure that targeted surveillance technologies are only used in compliance with international human rights law.
Additionally, concerns were raised about how recent consultations completely shut out civil society voices from participating. As organisations that serve as flag bearers for people on the move and other vulnerable groups, this severely diminished opportunities to bring in much needed perspectives into how certain norms could be put into practice for global governance of technologies. A much needed first step to think about migrant rights in the digital context would require finding convergences between the GDC and the Global Compact for Migrants and Refugees.
The limitations of global governance in an inequitable digital ecosystem:
Another concern that surfaced early in the conversation was about the effectiveness of global governance within a technological ecosystem that inherently favours Global North contexts. The emergence of AI and the predominance of certain commercial entities as harbingers of advanced machine learning capabilities and compute power has led to them determining the type of technologies that are used in border control and humanitarian service provision. As one of the participants pointed out, “LLMs are primarily West-centric and developed upon languages that have nothing to do with countries like Somalia or Afghanistan (that are currently facing refugee crises). Coupled with issues like minimal data security and unregulated data flows, the use of AI takes place without any ethical guardrails.” Responses pointed towards past experiences where participants had observed the deployment of digital platforms in humanitarian settings within Greece, and how these were based on existing state or multilateral contracts with commercial entities. The lack of transparency in how these contracts are established demands the need for greater public accountability from entities deploying technologies in vulnerable contexts.
Frameworks for data protection and technological safeguards are limited in such settings, and Global South countries are not in a position to negotiate for the rights of migrants and refugees in technology deployment that is dominated by North America and the EU. As nation-states providing these technologies, they could also set examples of what rights-preserving technologies and implementation can look like in these settings. However, the failure of the recently passed EU AI Act and its exclusion of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers from protection guaranteed to other groups, followed by the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum which does not place limits on targeted surveillance are concerning trends for digitally-mediated migration management.
Another set of participants working on migration control and domestic policing continued the discussion, highlighting how nation-states such as USA and the EU proliferate policies that promote targeted surveillance of migrants, but finding synergies in their border externalisation policies will always remain a challenge due to differing foundational ideologies. The United States as a constitution based on white land ownership, and the EU as a congregation of states that nominally raise the human rights question in their outlook on migration, puts into debate whether cross-border pacts will even be effective if we were to consider instituting a set of norms for the governance of technologies in the migration ecosystem.
Within a political milieu where nation-states are the most powerful entities in determining migration policies and regulation, it is clear why there remains a stark variability between state intention and migrant rights. The level of control that states can exercise over their borders indicates the power they possess in limiting human mobility, pushing them to build digital infrastructure and create sites for large-scale data extraction. People on the move are subjected to targeted surveillance at the will of the state and its policy objectives, with minimal negotiating room on conditions such as data collection and surveillance. The various shadow agendas of nation-states that manifest in the form of policy and infrastructure prevent global governance initiatives from being effective. As a first step to tackle this, a mapping of how power flows between different entities in this space from states, multilateral institutions, commercial actors and humanitarian agencies needs to be charted out to understand how people are being categorised by these stakeholders. The governance of technology and data in these spaces will need to address the power imbalances, and provide people on the move with a means to self-determination. Whether documents such as the GDC would be able to guide the development of technologies in the human mobility space is therefore unclear, but civil society and academia will need to be provided with a seat at the table to challenge the intra and inter-state power dynamics that currently prioritise the interests of a handful of decision-makers.
As pointed out by one of the participants, “It almost seems meaningless to be discussing the effectiveness of global governance in the context of the GDC and migration, when international institutions have turned a blind eye to the ongoing genocide in Palestine and failed to uphold basic human rights.”
Instances of resistance and the growing need for participatory, bottom-up governance:
Currently, economies at different levels are organising around migration control, whether it is within municipal units where the movement of people is tracked for labour and social security records, at national borders where digital infrastructure is being developed to set up digital frontiers, or in humanitarian settings where technology plays a mediating role in service provision. As we start to acknowledge the spectrum of migration as exemplified by these instances, there is a growing need to assess how migrant justice can manifest in various forms.
In New York City, for example, migrants involved in platform-mediated labour are now protected by the NYC Comptroller Office’s new employment violations dashboard, which provides public data on workers' rights offenders. Similarly, in emergency settings where access to essential services is dependent on locking into digital systems, modes of resistance have emerged through the creation of migrant and refugee-led initiatives that prioritise the interests of the community. These examples have also paved the way for models on participatory governance from the bottom-up for migrant communities. Including refugee perspectives and lived experiences in decision and policy making spaces is being viewed as a crucial means through which existing power imbalances in migration governance can be addressed. For instance, the Government of Canada has confirmed that every delegation that leaves Canada to a meeting of the international refugee regime will have a refugee member on the delegation that will advise the other members as to a refugee perspective. Promoting practices such as consultative design, and co-creation becomes an important aspect of technology creation in these settings, as highlighted by one of our members who developed a document storage application in collaboration with shelter directors and health professionals working with migrant communities in Tijuana. Specific technical design changes were made to meet the needs of people on the move, helping them access information even in cases where they did not have access to cell phones.
In summary, a few key insights and action areas detailed below:
Multilateral forums must create greater spaces to represent the needs of migrants, refugees and people on the move in digital spaces—identifying how the Global Digital Compact can encompass existing frameworks like the Global Compact on Migrants and Refugees is a necessary next step.
Even as the use of digital technologies to mediate migrant access to information and services is on the rise, the Global Digital Compact (GDC) is limited in scope, and does not address the needs of migrants, refugees and people on the move interfacing with digital technologies. Civil society participants highlighted the need for GDC to converge with the realities of migrants and refugees, specifically focusing on the need for provisions to ensure mass surveillance technologies are only used in compliance with international human rights law. As a vulnerable community that is erroneously subjected to state surveillance and excess data collection, technology deployment for migrants and refugees will need to come with greater accountability and safeguards to protect them from harm.
Existing power structures and systemic inequities inform migration management, and the digital realm will reflect these imbalances if not governed appropriately.
Technology and migration governance are deeply intertwined with intra and inter-state power dynamics that prioritise the interests of a handful of decision-makers. Without addressing these power imbalances, migration management will continue to reflect economic and political control rather than humanitarian concerns. Migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers are consistently subjected to targeted surveillance and overt data collection, only to meet the policy objectives of the state. There are limited avenues to address what migrant needs are when they are seeking temporary residence, and self-determination in these settings remains highly restricted due to state intentions being prioritised.
Additionally, participants pointed out how the digital divide between the Global North and Global South further marginalises migrants, who already face exclusion from technological advancements like AI. As pointed out by experts tracking border policy and regulation, there is a pressing need for nation-states like the USA and EU to create digital governance models that are cognisant of these power imbalances as they continue to develop digital migration infrastructure. The recent exclusion of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers from the EU AI Act, and the enabling of targeted surveillance through the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum are concerning trends.
Borders continue to be a contentious space, and state actors will need to uphold principles and norms by involving civil society in representing affected populations and their needs.
States are keen on building large-scale infrastructure to visibilise migrant movements and track illegal border crossing. However, this is leading to additional surveillance of people on the move and the use of data and AI to categorise ‘desirable’ and ‘undesirable’ migrants. There is also a growing involvement of commercial actors in technology provision, creating a nexus of state-private sector management of people on the move. Civil society voices are crucial to challenge these practices and raise concerns surrounding migrant justice and human rights at borders. Provisions for further representation of civil society organisations need to be created to limit the deployment of exploitative technologies, and push for greater transparency about states and commercial entities that are collaborating to provide technology at the borders.
Bottom-up, migrant-led participation is the need of the hour, and needs to be oriented toward meaningful, long-term trust building.
In order to create effective digital and migration policies, there needs to be a shift towards including migrants and refugee organisations in decision-making processes at the state, multilateral and humanitarian levels. Only through direct involvement can digital technologies be designed to cater to the lived experiences of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Participants with prior experience in directly involving migrants and refugees in city and national-level governance forums highlighted how their involvement brought to the forefront lived experiences that were not previously considered in policymaking settings. Additionally, the importance of consultation in technological design and the need for co-creation was raised to highlight how digital platforms and applications can be developed to meet refugee needs—creating newer avenues to resist the top-down implementation of technologies by states and other actors.
The following charts provide some information on the composition of the room during the event - across thematic areas of focus and sector of work.
Commenti