Solutions and Asylum Procedures
After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures across Europe, fresh technologies are now reviving these kinds of systems. Via lie detection tools analyzed at the boundary to a program for verifying documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of systems is being included in asylum applications. This article explores just how these solutions have reshaped the ways asylum procedures happen to be conducted. That reveals how asylum seekers are transformed into required hindered techno-users: They are asked to conform to a series www.ascella-llc.com/asylum-consultation of techno-bureaucratic steps and also to keep up with capricious tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This obstructs their particular capacity to find the way these systems and to pursue their right for safeguards.
It also displays how these types of technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They help in the ’circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a whirlwind of distributed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity simply by hindering these people from accessing the stations of safeguard. It further argues that examines of securitization and victimization should be combined with an insight into the disciplinary mechanisms these technologies, in which migrants are turned into data-generating subjects who have are disciplined by their reliance on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal understanding, the article argues that these solutions have an natural obstructiveness. They have a double result: whilst they assist to expedite the asylum procedure, they also produce it difficult meant for refugees to navigate these kinds 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 situations. Moreover, they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.
