After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures throughout Europe, fresh technologies are actually reviving these types of systems. By lie detection tools tested at the line to a program for validating documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of technologies is being found in asylum applications. This article explores just how these technology have reshaped the ways asylum procedures are conducted. This reveals just how asylum seekers happen to be transformed into compelled hindered techno-users: They are asked to conform to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and keep up with capricious tiny within criteria and deadlines. This obstructs their particular capacity to navigate these devices and to follow their right for proper protection.
It also shows how these types of technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They aid the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a whirlwind of dispersed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by hindering these people from opening the programs of safety. It further states that studies of securitization and victimization should be combined with an insight in to the disciplinary mechanisms for these technologies, in which migrants will be turned into data-generating subjects who have are regimented by their dependence on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal understanding, the article argues that these systems have an natural obstructiveness. There is a double impact: www.ascella-llc.com/generated-post-2 even though they assist to expedite the asylum procedure, they also produce it difficult with respect to refugees to navigate these types of systems. They may be positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes them vulnerable to bogus decisions manufactured by non-governmental actors, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their circumstances. Moreover, that they pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.