Technologies and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures around Europe, new technologies are reviving these types of systems. Coming from lie recognition tools examined at the edge to a program for validating documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of solutions is being made use of in asylum applications. This article is exploring how these solutions have reshaped the ways asylum procedures are conducted. That 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 also to keep up with unforeseen tiny within criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs all their capacity to find their way these systems and to follow their right for safeguard.

It also displays how these technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They accomplish the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a whirlwind of spread technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum . . . . . . seekers’ socio-legal precarity by hindering them from opening the channels of protection. It further states that analyses of securitization and victimization should be put together with an insight in the disciplinary mechanisms for these technologies, by which migrants happen to be turned into data-generating subjects who have are regimented by their reliance on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal understanding, the article states that these technology have an natural obstructiveness. They have a double result: www.ascella-llc.com/generated-post-2 even though they aid to expedite the asylum procedure, they also produce it difficult just for refugees to navigate these systems. They are simply positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to illegitimate decisions made by non-governmental stars, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their cases. Moreover, they will pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in erroneous or discriminatory outcomes.