After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures throughout Europe, fresh technologies are reviving these kinds of systems. From lie detection tools examined at the edge to a program for confirming documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of systems is being utilized for asylum applications. This article is exploring just how these systems have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. It reveals just how asylum seekers happen to be transformed into obligated hindered techno-users: They are asked to comply with a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and keep up with unstable tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This obstructs all their capacity to get around these systems and to pursue their right for safeguard.
It also displays how these types of technologies are embedded in refugee governance: They facilitate the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of distributed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by hindering them from being able to view the stations of safety. It further states that studies of securitization and victimization should be combined with an insight into the disciplinary www.ascella-llc.com/the-counseling-services-offers-free-confidential-counseling-services-to-enrolled-students/ mechanisms these technologies, in which migrants are turned into data-generating subjects who all are regimented by their reliability on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal knowledge, the article argues that these systems have an natural obstructiveness. They have a double result: whilst they help to expedite the asylum method, they also generate it difficult to get refugees to navigate these kinds of systems. They may be positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes them vulnerable to bogus decisions made by non-governmental actors, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their instances. Moreover, they will pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.