Systems and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures across Europe, fresh technologies have become reviving these types of systems. Right from lie detection tools analyzed at the line to a system for validating documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of solutions is being found in asylum applications. This article is exploring just how these technology have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. That reveals how asylum seekers happen to be transformed into compelled hindered techno-users: They are asked to conform to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps also to keep up with unpredictable tiny within criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs their capacity to browse these systems and to pursue their legal right for security.

It also displays how these technologies are embedded in refugee governance: They accomplish 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 being able to access the stations of safeguard. It further states that examines of securitization and victimization should be coupled with an insight into the disciplinary mechanisms for these technologies, through which migrants are turned into data-generating subjects who are regimented by their reliance on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal knowledge, the article argues that these solutions have an inherent obstructiveness. There is a double impact: when they assist to expedite the asylum process, they also produce it difficult just for refugees to navigate these kinds of systems. They may be positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to illegitimate decisions manufactured by non-governmental celebrities, and www.ascella-llc.com/portals-of-the-board-of-directors-for-advising-migrant-workers/ ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their situations. Moreover, they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in erroneous or discriminatory outcomes.