Technologies and Asylum Procedures
After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures throughout Europe, fresh technologies have become reviving these systems. Coming from lie detection tools tested at the edge to a system for verifying documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of technology is being utilized for asylum applications. This article is exploring click just how these solutions have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. This reveals just 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 unstable tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This obstructs their particular capacity to get around these systems and to pursue their right for protection.
It also illustrates how these technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They facilitate the ‚circuits of financial-humanitarianism‘ that function through a flutter of distributed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers‘ socio-legal precarity simply by hindering all of them from getting at the stations of safeguards. It further states that analyses of securitization and victimization should be along with an insight in to the disciplinary mechanisms of technologies, by which migrants happen to be turned into data-generating subjects who also are self-disciplined by their reliance on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal knowledge, the article states that these technology have an natural obstructiveness. They have a double effect: even though they help to expedite the asylum method, they also make it difficult with respect to refugees to navigate these kinds of systems. They are simply positioned in a ‚knowledge deficit‘ that makes these people vulnerable to illegitimate decisions created by non-governmental celebrities, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their situations. Moreover, they pose new risks of’machine mistakes‘ that may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.