Technologies and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures around Europe, new technologies are reviving these systems. Coming from lie diagnosis tools tested at the border to a system for confirming documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of technology is being found in asylum applications. This article explores how these technology have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. That reveals just how asylum seekers are transformed into compelled hindered techno-users: They are asked to conform to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and keep up with unforeseen tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs their capacity to work these devices and to pursue their right for safety.

It also demonstrates how these types of technologies are embedded in refugee governance: They help in the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of spread technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity simply by hindering them from opening the programs of cover. It portals of the board of directors for advising migrant workers further argues that studies of securitization and victimization should be along with an insight in the disciplinary mechanisms of the technologies, in which migrants are turned into data-generating subjects who also are disciplined by their reliability on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal understanding, the article argues that these solutions have an inherent obstructiveness. There is a double impact: although they assist to expedite the asylum process, they also help to make it difficult meant for refugees to navigate these systems. They may be positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes all of them vulnerable to illegitimate decisions made by non-governmental stars, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their conditions. Moreover, they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in erroneous or discriminatory outcomes.

Leave a Reply