Concerns over ‘jail-like conditions’ and invalid technology under EU

The approval of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum by the EU Council and the Parliament earlier this month, after years of negotiation, was hailed as a “historic day” and a “huge achievement”.

The new rules will ensure that the external borders of the bloc are strong and secure and that no country in the EU is left alone to deal with migratory pressure, according to EU authorities.

But as for the claim that people’s fundamental rights will be protected under the changes, it is clear that non-government groups, legal experts and migration researchers are far from convinced.

“We will not prevent Moria, we will get a whole lot of Morias,” said migration researcher Franck Duvell this week, referring to the ill-fated former camp on the Greek island of Lesbos and the new plans to create closed centers at the EU’s external borders. 

Inhumane and ‘a waste of money’

The faster processing and detention of migrants – mainly those who come from designated “safe countries of origin” – continues to provoke strong opposition. The idea is to stop these people who have little hope of being granted asylum from being able to remain in Europe and to ensure that they are deported quickly and efficiently. But an open letter to the European Commission from researchers calling the mandatory border procedures dangerous, inhumane and unfeasible has attracted at least 250 signatures.

In Italy, where such closed centers – called CPRs – are already operating, some are warning that the evidence shows they are inhumane and ineffective.

“Italy is wasting money with this kind of solution,” immigration rights lawyer Francesca Venturin told InfoMigrants.

“First of all, movement and immigration has not stopped. People are continuing to arrive in Italy. …So it’s a fake solution because it pretends to solve the problem, but it doesn’t,” she said.

Venturin says the policies of detention of asylum seekers and fast-tracking of asylum procedures – pushed by Italy and now being adopted across Europe – are not only unworkable, but also unjust.

“[It is] not right to keep people who arrive only to try to have a better life. … Inside the CPRs people don’t have any rights. It’s similar to a jail.”

Also read: Inquiry into inhuman conditions at Milan migrant center

Echoing the concerns expressed by many European migration experts and social scientists, Venturin worries about the impact of border procedures on the rights of asylum seekers.

Under the new regulations, many migrants will not have access to legal and other forms of support when they are assessed. Even at this early stage, alarm bells are ringing as local asylum authorities process claims faster than before.

“I’m very afraid as a lawyer because the international protection process for people who arrive from safe countries [in accelerated procedures] is extremely fast. It can happen that a person arrives and one month later, without processing his international protection request, he can be put in one of these [detention] centers,” Venturin said.

The detention of migrants at borders and assessment of asylum applications as “manifestly unfounded” – a cornerstone of the Pact – is aimed at making it easier to deport people. Venturin says this is another example of an approach that has failed in Italy.

“In reality there has been no improvement in these repatriations compared with five years ago, for example. So it is just a lie from the government that this will improve repatriations,” she said.

Expanding criminalization and digital surveillance

As well as increased detention, the return of migrants to safe third countries and many other changes, civil society groups are concerned about plans to deploy surveillance technologies and practices against migrants.

The Pact gives authorities greater powers to use digital technology to identify, filter, track, assess and control migrants. Specifically, more personal data will be able to be collected from migrants and biometric identification systems will enable their movements to be tracked.

Matthias Spielkamp, the executive director and co-founder of AlgorithmWatch, is concerned about the normalization of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and surveillance when it comes to migration and border control.

“What the EU is doing is basically claiming that there always needs to be the option to use these technologies for people on the move,” Spielkamp told InfoMigrants.

Also read: Amnesty: Digital tech in migration management risks violating human rights

The system of biometric data collection and sharing, expanded under changes to the Eurodac Regulation, has been highlighted by groups such as PICUM, the Platform for Undocumented Migrants.

There are also concerns about the possible deployment of AI in decision-making under newly-created screening procedures, such as an AI-based lie detector to be used during a visa application procedure via video link.

“Anyone familiar with these tools knows that this is a completely unreliable idea, because the methodology behind it is not really viable,” Spielkamp said. “We find it really concerning that (…) these kinds of technologies are then used to make decisions about people and whether they are allowed to enter a country or whether they are denied further steps in their asylum process.”

New tools to deter and control

Digital technologies used for forecasting can be invaluable in assisting humanitarian organizations engaged in providing help to migrants. However, they are more often used in deterrence, rather than assistance, according to Spielkamp.

“What’s so cynical about this whole thing is that we have very recently the case where we had hundreds of people in the Mediterranean drowning on a boat that capsized and that was on the radar – in the literal sense – of border authorities for a long time before it happened, and no one did anything,” he said.

“We have to look at the tools that people use, and when these things are developed, what is the motivation behind it? The motivation is to come up with new tools to deter and control and surveil people, so it’s always a back and forth between the human motivation and the technology itself.”