Biometric Technology at the Borders of Citizenship 331 more systematically. First, international humanitarian officers are not directly accountable to any State where they operate, meaning that their liability and subjection to prosecution for e.g. willingly providing false information – or accepting bribes – are unclear. Second, just like in many other sectors, humanitarian appointments tend to be shorter and shorter, due to generational job casualisation but also increased mobility, project fragmentation, overreliance on private philanthropy, and funding uncertainty; this means that controversies or follow-ups are not necessarily viable from a practical standpoint. Third, and perhaps most saliently, humanitarian personnel faces increasing political backlash – when not wholesale criminalisation – Ferstman (2019) by the entire political spectrum of most “developed” countries, and especially by their right-wing (or conservative) parties, who are concerned about the State losing grip over its borders and on retaining the ultimate decision over a person’s admission into its territory. In between apathy and desuetude (Gleichert 2020), the Refugee Convention and corollary obligations (for those States which have undertaken them) are the subject of long-standing controversy, to the extent that it appears unlikely that UNHCR officers alone could guarantee for refugee’s identity without the involvement of key individuals (not necessarily governmental ones!) from the “sending country” – and the “pulling country” alike. As I will expound infra for other “borderline citizens” just as much, one of the challenges then is to persuade third parties to “take the risk” of aiding a refugee’s remote onboarding without assurances that such parties (i.e. the introducers) would not be registered as well. The reasons why introducers would prefer to go unrecorded are several and perhaps mostly obvious: if they are summoned by the pulling country, they risk being identified as “immigration aiders/supporters” or even face detention risks for complicity (e.g. “aiding and abetting”) with illegal migration schemes; if, instead, they come from the sending country (or from within the same region), they might not want to risk their own immigration standing in the new country, and/or they might be escaping from the same source of persecution – that will hopefully renounce to extending its reach over them, if they go unnoticed for long enough and have left no family members back there. 5 Borderline Citizenship, Second Scenario: Internal Displacement Internally displaced persons (IDPs) are those who are forced to leave their habitual place of residency but are yet to cross an international border. Notably, due to the vastness of some of the most politically unstable and environmentally exploited