Systems and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures throughout Europe, new technologies have become reviving these kinds of systems. Coming from lie diagnosis tools examined at the edge to a system for validating documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of technology is being included in asylum applications. This article explores how these solutions have reshaped the ways asylum procedures happen to be conducted. This 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 also to keep up with capricious tiny within criteria and deadlines. This obstructs all their capacity to get around these devices and to pursue their right for cover.

It also illustrates how these kinds of technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They assist in the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of distributed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by hindering these people from being able to access the channels of security. It further argues that examines of securitization and victimization should be combined with an insight in to the disciplinary mechanisms of such technologies, through which migrants will be 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 states that these systems have an natural obstructiveness. There is a double impact: whilst they assistance to expedite the asylum process, they also make it difficult intended for refugees to navigate these kinds of systems. They are simply positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to illegitimate decisions created by non-governmental actors, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their instances. Moreover, they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in inaccurate or discriminatory outcomes.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *