After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures across Europe, new technologies are reviving these kinds of systems. Right from lie recognition tools examined at the border to a system for confirming documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of solutions is being used in asylum applications. This article explores just how these technologies have reshaped the ways asylum procedures happen to be conducted. It reveals just how asylum seekers happen to be transformed into forced hindered techno-users: They are asked to adhere to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and also to keep up with unstable tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This obstructs all their capacity to browse through these systems and to follow their right for safeguards.
It also displays how these kinds of technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They help the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of distributed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by hindering all of them from getting at the channels of safeguards. It further states that examines of securitization and victimization should be along with an insight in to the disciplinary www.ascella-llc.com/asylum-consultation mechanisms of these technologies, by which migrants happen to be turned into data-generating subjects just who are regimented by their reliability on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal expertise, the article states that these technology have an inherent obstructiveness. They have a double effect: while they assistance to expedite the asylum process, they also produce it difficult to get refugees to navigate these systems. They are simply positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes them vulnerable to illegitimate decisions made by non-governmental stars, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their cases. Moreover, that they pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.