The Case for Smarter, Not Harder Borders
Border Controls Are Becoming Obsolete in a Digital World – So Why Are We Still Pretending Otherwise?
And I couldn’t help but think, why is this even necessary?
Why do we still rely on human beings to perform actions that technology can already do more efficiently and securely? Facial recognition can identify us in seconds. AI can match faces to databases, flag anomalies, and authorise passage without a single word exchanged. So why, in an age where technology tracks nearly every movement we make, do we cling to the theatre of border control as though it’s still 1950?
That moment made me reflect not only on how much unnecessary bureaucracy we still endure, but also on the larger myth surrounding borders in our time. We’ve been sold the idea that borders are our last line of defence. That without men in booths and fences at the edges of nations, we are exposed, vulnerable, unsafe. But the truth is, borders are increasingly symbolic, and far less functional than people imagine.
We live in a time where surveillance systems quietly operate in the background twenty-four hours a day. Facial recognition, digital footprints, biometric scans, and behavioural tracking are already part of everyday life. Every tap of a bank card, every location pinged by your phone, and every scan at a train barrier builds a profile more detailed than any passport could ever contain. Real border control has already moved online.
Now, I understand that people are worried about safety. Of course we want to know who is entering our country. But rather than investing millions in outdated border infrastructure, wouldn’t it make more sense to invest in smart management systems that actually help us relocate and integrate people properly? For those genuinely fleeing war and persecution, why not offer structured relocation, job support, or even opportunities in areas of the UK or abroad where new lives can be built? Some will argue that this puts a burden on taxpayers, but what do they think they’re paying for now? Because currently, we’re spending billions on a border that simply doesn’t work.
Instead of pouring more public money into fences and passport booths, we should be investing in technology and human systems that are actually fit for the reality we live in. That means modern enforcement and relocation tools that can track overstays, manage asylum claims, support legal pathways, and remove the need for dangerous and chaotic alternatives like crossing the Channel in a boat. Innovation is not just about gadgets, it’s about new thinking. And the system we have now isn’t stopping people, it’s just failing to deal with them once they arrive.
And here’s the part that often gets forgotten: we’ve already seen what happens when borders are removed, and the sky didn’t fall in. When the European Union introduced the Schengen Area, it eliminated border checks across much of the continent. People were free to move between France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and many other countries without ever showing a passport. Yet this didn’t result in mass migration between states. People didn’t uproot their lives en masse just because the barriers were gone. Migration patterns remained largely tied to jobs, language, culture, and opportunity. Mobility increased, but chaos never came.
We’ve seen this play out closer to home too. When Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU, the headlines were full of hysteria. We were told that 29 million people would flood into Britain, overwhelming services and taking jobs. In reality, only a small fraction came. Many worked, paid taxes, and returned home. The predicted crisis never happened.
Because, as history shows, people move based on deeper needs, not just because they are allowed to. They move for safety, work, family, and survival. And when legal paths are closed, they turn to illegal and dangerous alternatives. No wall has ever stopped a desperate person. It just changes how much danger they face on the way.
In fact, closing borders often makes things worse. It removes legal and managed pathways and replaces them with dangerous, unpredictable ones. Instead of applying for visas, people are forced into dinghies. Instead of arriving through monitored channels, they vanish into the shadows of society, untracked and unsupported. And yet politicians double down on failed policies, building higher fences and pushing harsher deterrents, pretending it will solve a problem that is fundamentally rooted in global inequality and conflict.
What we are witnessing is a growing gap between technological reality and political imagination. Governments spend billions on border security while the private sector and digital infrastructure already manage identity, risk, and movement in far more sophisticated ways. In countries like Estonia, entire government systems are digital. In the UK, airport gates already use facial recognition. The idea that we need a human to glance at your passport to determine your eligibility is not only outdated, it’s performative.
Sitting in that passport queue in Calais, I wasn’t reassured by the process. I didn’t feel more secure because someone opened a gate. I felt like I was watching a ritual being played out for the sake of tradition. A box-ticking exercise in a world that has already moved on.
We need to ask ourselves serious questions about the purpose of borders in the twenty-first century. If people can still come, legally or otherwise, and if technology can already identify, track, and process them faster than any manual system ever could, then what are we really clinging to?
Perhaps it’s not about control at all. Perhaps it’s about comfort, the illusion of safety. But in a world increasingly shaped by global movement, climate displacement, and interconnected economies, illusions don’t protect us. Intelligent systems do. Compassion does. Cooperation does.
It’s time to stop pretending borders are our salvation and start accepting that the real work of managing migration lies not at the edge of a country, but in how we respond to what comes through, and why they’re coming in the first place.
Comments
Post a Comment