After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures around Europe, fresh technologies are now reviving these types of systems. From lie recognition tools examined at the line to a system for verifying documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of technologies is being used in asylum applications. This article is exploring how these solutions have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. This reveals just how asylum seekers are transformed into required hindered techno-users: They are asked to comply with a series www.ascella-llc.com/asylum-procedure-advice/ of techno-bureaucratic steps and to keep up with unpredictable tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This obstructs the capacity to steer these devices and to follow their right for proper protection.
It also illustrates how these kinds of technologies are embedded in refugee governance: They assist in the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of spread technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by simply hindering them from accessing the programs of proper protection. It further argues that analyses of securitization and victimization should be put together with an insight into the disciplinary mechanisms worth mentioning technologies, through which migrants will be turned into data-generating subjects whom are disciplined by their reliability on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal expertise, the article states that these solutions have an natural obstructiveness. There is a double effect: whilst they aid to expedite the asylum procedure, they also produce it difficult intended for refugees to navigate these systems. They are simply positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes them vulnerable to bogus decisions created by non-governmental actors, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their circumstances. Moreover, that they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in inaccurate or discriminatory outcomes.