In a speculative turn imagined by Philip K. Dick, the future hinted at predicting crimes before they happen. By 2023, the European Union began exploring a border system that uses artificial intelligence to forecast migrant movements and related tensions, a controversial tool receiving strong Catalan involvement.
The project, named ITFLOWS, aims to gather data on migration flows to optimize how Europe receives, relocates, and integrates people seeking entry. It also seeks to reduce risky crossings across the Mediterranean, where a significant number of people lose their lives each year, according to United Nations figures. A public grant of 4.87 million euros supports this work.
The project would help build what some call a smart border system. This vision includes surveillance enhancements at borders touching Africa, including Spain, Italy, and Greece. It envisions expanding facial recognition, drone monitoring, and the extraction of biometric and personal data to improve border operations.
Led by the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Brussels launched the project in September 2020, with the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona coordinating a consortium of 13 universities, economic institutes, humanitarian groups, and the Greek tech firm Terracom. The effort received about 761,000 euros in funding and is nicknamed EUMigraTool. The system is designed to predict future migration flows using public data from Eurostat, the IMF, and the United Nations, along with demographic and economic indicators. It also explores potential tensions by analyzing social media discussions and public reports.
When completed, access to the tool would be limited to non-governmental organizations. National governments or European institutions would not directly access it, according to statements attributed to Cristina Blasi, the EU project coordinator. The aim is to support NGOs in speeding up their response and informing policy discussions, with supervision by a dedicated user overseeing the process.
Three NGOs participating in the project have conducted extensive interviews with migrants and asylum seekers to uncover driving factors behind migration. They say the information will feed public reports and policy recommendations rather than serve as a direct predictor of future flows. Irene Viti, head of ITFLOWS at the Open Cultural Center, notes that the organization received a modest public grant to support its involvement in the project.
Multiple Risks
Questions surround the system and its potential harms. The consortium acknowledges possible human rights risks, and internal ethics documents discuss safeguards. Some analyses warn about the danger of states using the data to stigmatize or segregate immigrant populations. The handling of personal information—especially sensitive details about ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation—raises particular concerns. Measures have been proposed to prevent misuse, including informed consent, anonymized datasets, and strict access controls. Internal notes describe interviews as a way to build or refine predictive capacity, while experts suggest the data might inform reports rather than drive the model itself.
AI-based migration predictions are controversial. Some scholars argue the model should analyze historical patterns rather than forecast the future, and questions have been raised about relying on Google search data as a predictor. A professor of artificial intelligence at a leading UK university emphasizes that correlation does not imply causation and urges caution in interpreting search trends as migration indicators.
One noted caution refers to a widely cited tweet about the limitations of predicting migration solely from online search data, underscoring that interest in a topic does not guarantee future behavior.
Despite the debate, stakeholders wonder what happens when project funding ends. The main goal is for ITFLOWS and its foresight tools to remain in NGO hands to guide coordination and humanitarian action. Interviewees differ on whether the current results would be deployed as a prototype or a fully operational system, with some stressing that the aim is not to hand the tool to governments, as stated by Blasi.
Militarization of Borders
concerns extend to how the tool might be used in border security. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency has shown interest in frontier data tools, and its inclusion in internal project documents as a stakeholder raises worries about mission creep. The European Union’s asylum and border agencies, along with member state representatives and the European Commission, participate in the design and validation stages, prompting calls for clear usage safeguards to prevent overreach or misuse.
Frontex’s historical practices contribute to ongoing scrutiny. A former chief executive resigned amid allegations of abuses against refugees and migrants, with subsequent investigations highlighting alleged incidents at sea. Critics caution that even well‑intentioned tools can be leveraged in ways that undermine rights and freedoms if not properly restricted by law and oversight.
The project coordinator maintains that Frontex would receive reports only at infrequent intervals to explain results, and that current safeguards would limit any humanitarian misuse while steering clear of broader safety or surveillance abuses. Yet the discussion continues among policymakers, researchers, and civil society groups about how to balance security needs with human rights protections.