Systems and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures across Europe, new technologies are reviving these types of systems. Right from lie diagnosis tools examined at the boundary to a system for verifying documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of technology is being applied to asylum applications. This article explores www.ascella-llc.com/asylum-consultation just how these solutions have reshaped the ways asylum procedures are conducted. It reveals just how asylum seekers are transformed into compelled hindered techno-users: They are asked to adhere to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and to keep up with unpredictable tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs their particular capacity to navigate these devices and to pursue their legal right for proper protection.

It also demonstrates how these types of technologies will 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 by hindering these people from accessing the stations of proper protection. It further argues that studies of securitization and victimization should be along with an insight in to the disciplinary mechanisms of them technologies, by which migrants are turned into data-generating subjects whom are disciplined by their dependence on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal understanding, the article argues that these solutions have an inherent obstructiveness. They have a double result: even though they aid to expedite the asylum process, they also generate it difficult intended for refugees to navigate these kinds of systems. They may be positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes them vulnerable to illegitimate decisions manufactured by non-governmental actors, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their conditions. Moreover, they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.