When hatred follows refugees across borders

For generations, refugee protection rested on a simple assumption: Those fleeing persecution could cross an international border, find safety in another country and begin rebuilding their lives. The physical act of crossing a frontier marked the transition from danger to protection. That assumption is becoming increasingly outdated.

In the digital age, persecution is no longer confined by geography. Refugees may escape the governments, militias or armed groups that forced them from their homes but they cannot always escape the narratives that justified their persecution. Social media has created a world in which misinformation, hate speech and coordinated online campaigns can cross borders far more easily than people. As a result, the threats refugees face increasingly extend beyond the country they fled.

The recent surge of online hostility toward Rohingya refugees in Malaysia illustrates this transformation. Reports of community schools closing following online threats and intimidation are more than an isolated national story. They highlight a broader shift in the nature of displacement itself. Refugees are no longer protected simply because they have reached another country. The digital environment of the host state has become an equally important part of their security.

This represents a challenge that the international refugee system was never designed to confront.

Social media has collapsed the distance between the country of origin and the country of refuge

Dr. Azeem Ibrahim

The 1951 Refugee Convention and the institutions built around it emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War. Their focus was necessarily physical. Refugees required protection from persecution, safe asylum, legal status and the principle of non-refoulement, ensuring they would not be returned to danger. These principles remain fundamental and continue to save countless lives.

Yet the architects of the modern refugee system could not have anticipated a world in which the same false narratives that fueled persecution in one country could be reproduced, amplified and exported across digital platforms to another.

The Rohingya offer perhaps the clearest example. Years before the 2017 mass displacement from Myanmar, social media had already become an important vehicle for spreading anti-Rohingya propaganda. False stories, conspiracy theories and dehumanizing narratives circulated widely, contributing to an environment in which discrimination and violence became easier to justify. While social media was far from the sole cause of the crisis, numerous investigations have concluded that online platforms played a significant role in amplifying hatred.

Today, a similar pattern is emerging beyond Myanmar’s borders. In Malaysia, where many Rohingya sought refuge, online hostility has reportedly intensified in recent months, contributing to fear within refugee communities and disrupting access to education. Community schools have faced closure because of security concerns, leaving children particularly vulnerable. The consequences extend well beyond the internet. Digital hostility is increasingly shaping real-world outcomes.

This is what makes the issue so significant.

Social media has transformed refugee politics by collapsing the distance between the country of origin and the country of refuge. The information environment no longer stops at the border.

A refugee may physically leave persecution behind but online narratives can ensure that suspicion, hostility and misinformation arrive first. This creates a dangerous cycle.

Digital misinformation fuels public anxiety. Public anxiety generates political pressure. Governments respond by tightening restrictions or reducing support. Refugees become more isolated, limiting opportunities for education, employment and social integration. That exclusion then reinforces negative stereotypes, creating further resentment and additional misinformation.

The result is a self-sustaining spiral in which online hostility and offline discrimination continually reinforce one another.

The implications extend far beyond the Rohingya. Around the world, refugees increasingly find themselves at the center of digitally amplified political debates. Economic uncertainty, housing shortages and social tensions create fertile ground for misinformation. Refugees, who often lack political representation and legal protection, become convenient targets for narratives that portray them as threats to national identity, public security or economic stability.

The speed with which such narratives spread fundamentally alters the politics of asylum.

In previous decades, public attitudes toward refugees were largely shaped by traditional media, political leaders and direct interaction with local communities. Today, algorithms reward emotionally charged content, while misinformation can reach millions of people before it is challenged or corrected. Refugee communities rarely possess the resources or institutional capacity to respond effectively. This asymmetry places them at a profound disadvantage.

The consequences are particularly severe for children. When schools close because of security fears, education is interrupted. When parents fear harassment, they become reluctant to send children into public spaces. Over time, educational disruption contributes to poverty, social exclusion and diminished opportunities for future employment.

Ironically, these outcomes may deepen the very social problems that hostile online narratives claim to fear.

The challenge for policymakers is that refugee protection has traditionally focused on physical security. Governments invest in border management, asylum systems and humanitarian assistance. International organizations monitor displacement, coordinate aid and advocate for legal protections. These measures remain indispensable. But they are no longer sufficient.

Protecting displaced populations in the 21st century requires more than shelter, food and legal status

Dr. Azeem Ibrahim

If digital campaigns can undermine public acceptance of refugees, intimidate vulnerable communities and influence political decision-making, then the information environment itself has become part of refugee protection.

This does not mean governments should attempt to police legitimate public debate on migration. Democratic societies will continue to disagree about immigration and asylum policy. Nor does every critical discussion of refugee policy constitute hate speech.

The issue is narrower but equally important. When coordinated misinformation, targeted harassment or deliberate incitement threaten the safety and dignity of refugee communities, they cease to be merely questions of online content. They become questions of civilian protection.

International organizations therefore need to expand how they think about refugee security. Protecting displaced populations in the 21st century requires more than shelter, food and legal status. It also requires recognizing that digital spaces can become environments in which vulnerability is either reduced or intensified.

Early warning systems for refugee crises should include monitoring coordinated online campaigns that target displaced communities. Humanitarian organizations should work more closely with governments, researchers and technology companies to understand how digital narratives influence conditions on the ground. Host governments should recognize that successful refugee integration depends not only on economic opportunities but also on maintaining an information environment that does not reward dehumanization.

The Rohingya are not the only refugees confronting this challenge. They are simply among the first to demonstrate its scale.

The defining image of 20th century refugee protection was the border crossing. Escape meant reaching another country. The defining challenge of the 21st century may be different.

In a world where hatred travels at the speed of an algorithm, crossing the border is no longer enough. Refugees may leave persecution behind but, unless the international community adapts, the persecution can follow them.

• Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is the director of special initiatives at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington. X: @AzeemIbrahim