Security at the Border? The Lived Experiences of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK

We bring to light how some asylum seekers and refugees arriving in the UK experience border control and wider immigration systems, as well as the impact that these have on their subsequent lives in the UK. We do so through participant observation in a support organisation and interviews with caseworkers, asylum seekers and refugees. Specifically, our findings show how the first meeting with the border, combined with a ‘hostile’ immigration system, has a longer-term impact on their sense of belonging. Our observations highlight feelings of insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty that accompanied participants’ experiences with immigration systems and processes. We contribute to the growing body of HCI scholarship on the tensions between immigration and (security) technology. In so doing, we point to future directions for participatory and collaborative design practices that centre on the lived experiences and everyday security of asylum seekers and refugees.

💡 Research Summary

This paper investigates how refugees and asylum seekers experience border control technologies and the wider UK immigration system, and how these encounters shape their sense of everyday security after arrival. The authors conducted a three‑month ethnographic study (June–August 2024) at a London‑based charity that provides immigration‑related assistance (e‑visa applications, biometric residence permit queries, GP registration, housing and welfare appointments). They combined participant observation with semi‑structured interviews of twelve participants: six asylum seekers/refugees (clients) and six charity staff (caseworkers, CEO, legal aid).

The study is framed by the “hostile environment” policy introduced in the early 2010s, which obliges migrants to constantly prove their status to landlords, employers, health services, banks and other service providers. Recent technological roll‑outs—biometric passports, e‑gates, digital visas, and the 2025 e‑visa replacement of physical biometric residence permits—have turned border control into a digitally mediated, data‑driven process. While these technologies are promoted as efficiency and security measures, prior HCI work shows they can create new hierarchies, shift the burden of legibility onto migrants, and reinforce suspicion.

Key findings:

1. Border encounter as lasting trauma – Participants described the first interaction with UK border officials as “being treated as a suspect by default.” Biometric scans, automated e‑gate checks, and opaque decision‑making generated feelings of humiliation, anxiety and a persistent sense of otherness. This initial trauma continued to shape their everyday security, even after legal status was granted.

2. Digital infrastructure as a barrier – The shift to e‑visas and online status verification required digital literacy, stable internet access, and English proficiency. Many participants struggled with login errors, unclear portal instructions, and frequent requests for additional documentation. These technical hurdles translated into practical obstacles in housing, healthcare, employment and banking, reinforcing a culture of continual proof‑making and “disbelief.”

3. The mediating role of caseworkers – Charity staff acted as essential intermediaries, translating technical requirements into understandable steps, completing forms on behalf of clients, and providing emotional reassurance. Participants reported that the presence of a trusted caseworker dramatically reduced stress and restored a sense of belonging.

4. Design implications – The authors propose four participatory design directions: (a) pre‑arrival digital orientation tools that simulate border checks and explain required documents; (b) multilingual, multimodal interfaces for e‑visa and status portals; (c) transparent data dashboards that let users track what information is stored and who can access it; and (d) formal integration of human mediators (caseworkers, legal aid) into the digital workflow, creating a hybrid system that balances automation with human empathy.

Methodologically, the paper bridges HCI scholarship on “digital border assemblies” with migration studies that focus on the moment of crossing, addressing a gap concerning how initial border experiences affect long‑term everyday security and belonging. By foregrounding affective responses—fear, frustration, alienation—the study demonstrates that border technologies are not neutral tools but active producers of subjectivities and social hierarchies.

Policy implications include re‑examining the UK’s hostile‑environment legislation, ensuring that digital immigration services are accessible to low‑literacy and non‑English‑speaking users, and institutionalising the role of caseworkers as official partners in the immigration verification process.

In sum, the paper provides empirical evidence that technologically mediated border control in the UK creates enduring insecurity for refugees and asylum seekers, but that participatory, human‑centered design and supportive mediation can mitigate these harms and foster a more inclusive sense of security and belonging.