Andrew Fallone, a PhD researcher at the Institute of Criminology, has recently published two studies on migration in the 21st century.
The number of people on the move are at the highest levels since the end of the Second World War.World War. Unfortunately, many of these people face challenges safely reaching countries where they can find durable solutions to their displacement. Often, their arrival has led to countries increasing border security. Fallone’s studies discuss how countries’ migration policies impact migrants, what these policies lack, and potential alternative approaches.
Each study focuses on different aspects of migration. ‘Time As Violence: A User-Centric Approach to Digital Migration Management’ was published by Prague Process, who aim to create collaborative migration policies across Europe and Western Asia.
In this study, Fallone focuses on irregular immigration, and the role of digital tools in managing it. The CBP One app is used as a case study from which to draw lessons. Developed by US Customs and Border Protection in 2020, this app was initially a meant for goods transporters in Mexico to streamline their entrance into the USA. In 2023, it was expanded to become a means for people on the move to request permission to cross the US border and using it evolved to become a prerequisite to lodging a viable asylum claim a year later. The system’s current iteration was designed to screen up to 1450 people a day.
Fallone criticises CBP One for creating the potential for opportunistic actors to profit off of the difficulties, errors, glitches, and excessive waiting times that people on the move experience using the app. This increasing reliance on opaque digital systems is a growing issue with migration polices around the world. While this has the potential to reduce workloads, digital systems are also liable to error. They are also frequently based on the characteristics of their designers, which can result in algorithms reflecting systemic inequalities.
He also highlights how the broader processing system did not meet the needs of people applying through CBP One. By 2024, 150,000 people a day were applying. This meant every individual had less than a 1% chance of receiving an appointment. The processing also required applicants remain in Mexico for a significant duration of time while waiting to receive an appointment, increasing the costs that people experience during their migration journeys.
More broadly, CBP One’s role in creating a new digital border reflects a wider failure of many migration systems. Namely, it shows an inability to engage with the issues causing displacement, focusing only on managing the displaced.
Fallone released another study, ‘Identifying Criteria for Complementary Pathways to Provide Sustainable Solutions for Refugees: Two Canadian Case Studies’, together with his colleague Roberto Cortinovis. Published in the book ‘Global Asylum Governance and the European Union's Role’, this focuses on new strategies for expanding refugee resettlement. Canada’s refugee pathway system is used as a case study, specifically its two complementary pathways. The Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) programme has operated since the 1970s. Meanwhile, the Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot (EMPP) was introduced more recently with the goal of retrofitting existing economic migration pathways to enable the resettlement of refugees.
While these schemes have helped many displaced people resettle in Canada, Fallone and Cortinovis nonetheless highlight issues with both. They highlight the way in which the Private Sponsorship of Refugees programme has become a default pathway for the family reunification of refugees in Canada. They also argue that the Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot has in-built eligibility parameters that inhibit the majority of displaced people from accessing such migration pathways. Similarly to CBP One, the processing times for Canada’s complementary pathways are lengthy. Both examples highlight another wider issue in approaches to immigration. Many displaced people find themselves in a prolonged state of legal limbo, as citizens of neither their home country nor the countries in which they seek asylum. During this time, they face increased risk of exploitation with limited ability to act against it, a process Fallone describes as ‘slow violence’.
Fallone argues that these two studies, while focusing on different types of immigration, reveal issues that are common to many systems. One important point in both is how arbitrary the designations of ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’ immigration are. The phenomenon of ‘passport privilege’ is emblematic of this arbitrary distinction. Countries in Europe and North America can easily enter most others without needing a visa. Many of the people currently displaced are from countries with much more limited access. This can lead to people resorting to illicit methods to resettle. Fallone hopes that these studies can demonstrate how regular migration is not typically accessible for displaced populations around the world.
To allow for more regular migration, Fallone emphasises the need for safe and affordable migration routes. The CBP One study highlighted how a lack of accessible routes to the USA led to more people using illicit services. This is also seen in the movement of people from the Middle East and Africa to the EU in the last decade. Many EU border countries have responded with stricter border policies, most notably the increased policing of the Western Balkans. Border management has also been externalised, with governments in the Global North outsourcing efforts to inhibit migration to governments in the Global South.
In response, more people have sought out smugglers. Fallone argues that stricter border policies do not on their own prevent people from crossing borders. It simply changes their methods of doing so. His research showed that people smuggling is demand-based, rather than supply-based.
“These policies cannot ever be imagined functioning in terms of preventing irregular migration,” he explains. “If people aren't provided with an alternative to irregular migration, irregular migration will continue to exist.”
Both publications also highlight disparities among displaced populations. Among any number of people on the move, some will be more able to access migration services than others. These include people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, urban dwellers, multilingual people, and people from religious or ethnic majorities. Groups such as these may be able to access information more easily, more capable of supporting themselves, and less likely to face discrimination in the process. Similarly, other countries’ refugee pathways can inadvertently privilege certain individuals, such as through family connections. Future migration routes need to be designed to provide all migrants with equal opportunity to resettle.
Finally, both publications argue for rethinking how we approach displaced people. Currently, displacement and asylum applications are viewed largely in numbers. Successful systems are judged by how many people are taken in or prevented from entering. But very little consideration is given to what happens after. Fallone’s research makes the case for more countries to pursue regularisation of irregular migrant populations already within their borders, allowing them to better integrate into, participate in, and contribute to their host societies.
Fallone does provide some recent examples of effectively reacting to the realities of global displacement. He highlights Spain, which has recently taken steps to regularise the legal status of many displaced people. Policies to facilitate this include reducing residency qualification, increasing access to work permits, and creating new integration pathways. As many as 300,000 irregular migrants per year could become Spanish citizens through this process. Botswana’s newly elected government has also advocated for regularising the status of its Zimbabwean refugees, using the African Union’s definition of legitimate grounds for asylum. Under this framework, anybody displaced by unrest is granted asylum, without needing to prove persecution due to a certain characteristic.
“Governments need to recognise the realities of international displacement, to mitigate the challenges associated with irregular migration by providing people with legal means to remain in a country and find a new life,” says Fallone. “The UN Global Compact on Migration and Refugees talk about durable solutions. The most durable solution is regular legal status.”