Technologies and Asylum Procedures
After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures across Europe, new technologies are now reviving these types of systems. By lie detection tools tested at the boundary to a program for verifying documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of systems is being utilised in asylum applications. This article is exploring how these technology have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. That reveals just how asylum seekers are transformed into required hindered techno-users: They are asked to adhere to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and to keep up with capricious tiny within criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs the capacity to work these systems and to go after their legal right for safeguards.
It also illustrates how these types of technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They help 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 all of them from being able to access the programs of security. It further states that examines of securitization and victimization should be combined with an insight into the disciplinary mechanisms of them technologies, through which migrants happen to be turned into data-generating subjects whom are self-disciplined by their reliance on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal know-how, the article argues that these technologies have an inherent obstructiveness. They have a double result: whilst they aid to expedite the asylum process, they also make it difficult pertaining to refugees to navigate these kinds of systems. They can be positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to bogus decisions created by non-governmental celebrities, and www.ascella-llc.com/what-is-the-due-diligence-data-room ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their circumstances. Moreover, they will pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in erroneous or discriminatory outcomes.
