Technologies and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures around Europe, new technologies are now reviving these systems. Out of lie recognition tools analyzed at the boundary to a system for confirming documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of solutions is being found in asylum applications. This article explores just how these technology have reshaped the ways asylum procedures happen to be conducted. That reveals how asylum seekers happen to be transformed into required hindered techno-users: They are asked to adhere to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and also to keep up with unforeseen tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This obstructs the capacity to run these systems and to pursue their legal right for protection.

It also demonstrates how these kinds of technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They help in the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of dispersed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by hindering all of them from interacting with the programs of safety. It further argues that studies of securitization and victimization should be coupled with an insight in the disciplinary mechanisms of the technologies, through which migrants will be turned into data-generating subjects whom are regimented by their dependence on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal expertise, the article states that these technologies have an inherent obstructiveness. They have a double result: www.ascella-llc.com even though they aid to expedite the asylum procedure, they also generate it difficult designed for refugees to navigate these systems. They are really positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to illegitimate decisions manufactured by non-governmental celebrities, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their cases. Moreover, they will pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.