Technologies and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures across Europe, fresh technologies have become reviving these kinds of systems. Via lie recognition tools tested at the line to a system for confirming documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of solutions is being found in asylum applications. This article explores just how these technologies have reshaped the ways asylum procedures are conducted. That reveals how asylum seekers happen to be transformed into compelled hindered techno-users: They are asked to adhere to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps also to keep up with unforeseen tiny within criteria and deadlines. This obstructs all their capacity to steer these systems and to pursue their legal right for safeguards.

It also shows how these kinds of technologies happen to be embedded in refugee governance: They help in the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a whirlwind of distributed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity simply by hindering them from accessing the stations of cover. It further states that examines of securitization and victimization should be along with an insight into the disciplinary www.ascella-llc.com/ mechanisms of those technologies, through which migrants are turned into data-generating subjects who also are disciplined by their dependence on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal know-how, the article states that these solutions have an inherent obstructiveness. There is a double effect: while they aid to expedite the asylum process, they also help to make it difficult with regards to refugees to navigate these systems. They are positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to illegitimate decisions made by non-governmental actors, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their situations. Moreover, that they pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in erroneous or discriminatory outcomes.