Systems and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures across Europe, fresh technologies have become reviving these systems. Coming from lie recognition tools analyzed at the edge to a program for verifying documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of solutions is being used by asylum applications. This article explores just how these technology have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. This reveals just how asylum seekers are transformed into forced hindered techno-users: They are asked to conform to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps also to keep up with unpredictable tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This obstructs their particular capacity to understand these devices and to pursue their right for security.

It also demonstrates how these kinds of technologies happen to be embedded in refugee governance: They accomplish 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 all of them from being able to view the programs of protection. It further states that studies of securitization and victimization should be put together with an insight into the disciplinary mechanisms of such technologies, in which migrants are turned into data-generating subjects just who are self-disciplined by their reliance on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal expertise, the article argues that these technologies have an inherent obstructiveness. There is a double impact: whilst they assist to expedite the asylum method, they also make it difficult pertaining to refugees to navigate these systems. They are positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to illegitimate decisions created by non-governmental actors, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their circumstances. Moreover, they will pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in inaccurate or discriminatory outcomes.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top