After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures across Europe, new technologies are reviving these kinds of systems. By lie recognition tools tested at the border to a program for validating documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of technology is being utilized for asylum applications. This article explores how these technologies have reshaped the ways asylum procedures are conducted. This reveals how asylum seekers will be transformed into obligated hindered techno-users: They are asked to conform to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and to keep up with unpredictable tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This obstructs the capacity to steer these devices and to pursue their legal right for coverage.
It also shows how these types of technologies are 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 simply by hindering them from getting at the stations of security. It portals of the board of directors for advising migrant workers further argues that studies of securitization and victimization should be coupled with an insight into the disciplinary mechanisms of such technologies, through 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 knowledge, the article argues that these technology have an inherent obstructiveness. There is a double result: although they assist with expedite the asylum procedure, they also produce it difficult for the purpose of refugees to navigate these kinds of systems. They are really positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes all of them vulnerable to bogus decisions manufactured by non-governmental celebrities, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their conditions. Moreover, they will pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in inaccurate or discriminatory outcomes.
Leave a Comments