Technologies and Asylum Procedures
After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures throughout Europe, new technologies are now reviving these kinds of systems. Out of lie diagnosis tools examined at the boundary to a system for verifying documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of solutions is being made use of in asylum applications. This article explores just how these technologies have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. That reveals how asylum seekers are transformed into compelled hindered techno-users: They are asked to abide by a series of techno-bureaucratic steps also to keep up with unpredictable tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs their very own capacity to work these devices and to pursue their right for safety.
It also shows how these technologies happen to be embedded in refugee governance: They facilitate 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 these people from accessing the stations of protection. It further states that studies of securitization and victimization should be put together with an insight in to the disciplinary www.ascella-llc.com/asylum-consultation mechanisms worth mentioning technologies, in which migrants are turned into data-generating subjects so, who are disciplined by their dependence on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal know-how, the article states that these technologies have an inherent obstructiveness. There is a double effect: whilst they assist to expedite the asylum process, they also generate it difficult meant for refugees to navigate these systems. They are simply positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes them vulnerable to bogus decisions made by non-governmental stars, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their situations. Moreover, that they pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in erroneous or discriminatory outcomes.
