Systems and Asylum Procedures
After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures around Europe, fresh technologies are now reviving these systems. Right from lie recognition tools examined at the edge to a program for validating documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of systems is being made use of in asylum applications. This article is exploring how these technologies have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. It reveals just how asylum seekers will be transformed into pressured hindered techno-users: They are asked to comply with a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and to keep up with unforeseen tiny within criteria and deadlines. This obstructs the capacity to browse these systems and to follow their legal right for coverage.
It also shows how these types of technologies happen to be embedded in refugee governance: They assist in the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of dispersed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity simply by hindering these people from interacting with the channels of protection. It further argues that analyses of securitization and victimization should be combined with an insight in to the disciplinary mechanisms worth mentioning technologies, by which migrants are turned into data-generating subjects just who are self-disciplined by their reliability on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal understanding, the article states that these technologies have an inherent obstructiveness. They have a double result: whilst they assist with expedite the asylum procedure, they also help to make it difficult for refugees to navigate these systems. They are positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to bogus decisions made by non-governmental celebrities, and click ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their conditions. Moreover, that they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.