After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures across Europe, fresh technologies are reviving these systems. Out of lie detection tools tested at the border to a program for confirming documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of technologies is being utilized in asylum applications. This article is exploring just how these technology have reshaped the ways asylum procedures are conducted. It reveals how asylum seekers happen to be transformed into compelled hindered techno-users: They are asked to adhere to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and keep up with unstable tiny within criteria and deadlines. This obstructs the capacity to work these systems and to go after their legal right for safeguard.
It also displays how these technologies happen to be embedded in refugee governance: They aid 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 accessing the programs of protection. It further states that studies of securitization and victimization should be along with an insight into the disciplinary www.ascella-llc.com/what-is-the-due-diligence-data-room/ mechanisms of these technologies, in which migrants will be turned into data-generating subjects just who 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 technology have an natural obstructiveness. There is a double effect: even though they help to expedite the asylum method, they also generate it difficult with regards to refugees to navigate these types of systems. They are simply positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to bogus decisions created by non-governmental actors, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their circumstances. Moreover, that they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.