Digitalising Asylum Management: Innovation or Technosolutionism? A Critical Look at the EU’s Direction

Read Time:2 Minute, 47 Second

Across Europe, digitalisation has rapidly entered the field of asylum and migration management. From biometric databases to automated screening tools, many EU+ countries* are adopting technologies that promise faster, more efficient, and more “objective” procedures. On paper, this shift is presented as modernisation, an attempt to harmonise systems and reduce administrative bottlenecks. A recent report from the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) published on eleventh of September two-thousand twenty five highlights just how widespread this transformation has become. But as a social science student observing these developments, I find myself questioning whether the growing reliance on technology actually improves protection, or whether it risks reinforcing inequalities under the guise of innovation.

At the heart of this debate lies technosolutionism: the belief that technological tools can “fix” complex social and political issues. This mindset risks oversimplifying the inherently human and interpretive nature of asylum processes. Technologies do not exist in a vacuum; they reflect political priorities and often serve the logic of control, surveillance, and risk management rather than care and protection.

Under the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, digitalisation has become a central pillar of reform. Yet this raises crucial ethical questions. Asylum interviews, credibility assessments, and vulnerability screenings cannot be reduced to mere data inputs. Many asylum seekers struggle with trauma, language barriers, or fear of authorities, factors that cannot be captured by automated systems or rigid digital forms. When technology becomes the default method for evaluation, it risks flattening human stories into bureaucratic categories, leaving less room for empathy or contextual understanding.

Moreover, the increasing use of biometric and data-driven tools raises concerns about privacy, consent, and potential misuse. When individuals fleeing conflict or persecution are required to hand over extensive personal data, the power imbalance becomes stark. In some systems, technological errors or mismatched records can lead to wrongful rejections or delays, situations with severe consequences for people seeking safety. If a digital system makes a mistake, who is accountable? And how easily can individuals contest decisions that appear “objective” simply because they were generated by a machine?

Another challenge lies in the risk of digital exclusion. Many asylum seekers do not have stable access to smartphones, internet, or digital literacy. When reception systems rely heavily on online applications, QR codes, or automated appointment systems, those with limited digital skills may be inadvertently pushed aside. Digitalisation, instead of making processes more accessible, can deepen existing vulnerabilities.

This does not mean technology has no role in asylum governance. Digital tools can improve coordination, reduce paperwork, and support faster communication when used responsibly. But without transparency, safeguards, and meaningful human oversight, digitalisation risks legitimising a form of bureaucratic distancing, one where efficiency is valued over dignity, and where empathy becomes optional.

Ultimately, the question is not whether technology should be used, but how it should be used, by whom, and with what protections. As Europe continues to expand its reliance on data-driven migration management, it is essential to recognise that asylum systems are not merely administrative structures, they are human encounters. And no amount of digital innovation should replace the fundamental need for compassion, fairness, and genuine understanding in the lives of those seeking safety.

For more details, you can read the full EUAA report on how different countries are incorporating digital tools into their assessments of asylum seekers and migrants: See here