As governments and institutions around the world accelerate the adoption of digital identity systems, these technologies are increasingly framed as solutions for inclusion, efficiency, and access to services. However, the report Digital Identity and Migration: Struggles for Equitable Technology Governance by Caribou argues that digital identity is far from neutral and can reflect and often reinforces existing power structures, particularly in the context of migration.
Migration systems have become a critical testing ground for digital identity technologies. From biometric registration at borders to digital documentation for accessing services, migrants are often among the first to encounter new identity tools. While this can create opportunities for recognition and access, it also exposes migrants to heightened risks including, surveillance, data misuse, and exclusion due to rigid system requirements or lack of formal documentation. In many cases, individuals who are already vulnerable find themselves further marginalised by systems that are not designed with their realities in mind.
The report argues that digital identity systems frequently reproduce the inequalities they claim to solve. Despite policy rhetoric emphasising inclusion and empowerment, the actual implementation of these technologies often falls short. Complex interfaces, inflexible verification processes, and limited accountability mechanisms can prevent migrants from accessing essential services. At the same time, governments and private sector actors retain significant control over how these systems operate.
The challenges faced by migrants are not isolated. They highlight broader systemic flaws that affect many groups, including the elderly, disabled individuals, and those with limited digital literacy. In this sense, migrants serve as a lens through which the weaknesses of digital identity systems become more visible. Designing systems that work for migrants, therefore, has the potential to improve accessibility and fairness for all users.
Rather than treating technology as a standalone solution, it emphasises the need for rights-based approaches that prioritise equity, privacy, and user participation. This includes incorporating safeguards such as data protection by design, allowing for flexible forms of identification, and involving affected communities in decision-making processes.
