Technology and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures around Europe, fresh technologies are reviving these kinds of systems. Coming from lie diagnosis tools analyzed at the edge to a system for confirming documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of technologies is being made use of in asylum applications. This article explores how these systems have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. This reveals just how asylum seekers are transformed into required hindered techno-users: They are asked to comply with a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and to keep up with unforeseen tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This obstructs the capacity to understand these systems and to follow their legal right for proper protection.

It also illustrates how these kinds of technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They facilitate the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a whirlwind of distributed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by simply hindering these people from opening the stations of safeguard. It further states that studies of securitization and victimization should be coupled with an insight into the disciplinary mechanisms these technologies, by which migrants happen to 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 expertise, the article states that these technologies have an inherent obstructiveness. They have a double impact: while they assist with expedite the asylum procedure, they also generate it difficult designed for refugees to navigate these types of systems. They are positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes them vulnerable to bogus decisions of non-governmental celebrities, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their conditions. Moreover, they will pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in erroneous or discriminatory outcomes.

Leave a Reply