skip to Main Content

Solutions and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures across Europe, fresh technologies are reviving these systems. By lie detection tools tested at the edge to a system for validating documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of systems is being used in asylum applications. This article is exploring how these systems have reshaped the ways asylum procedures happen to be conducted. This reveals how asylum seekers happen to be transformed into compelled hindered techno-users: They are asked to adhere to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps also to keep up with unstable tiny within criteria and deadlines. This obstructs their very own capacity to browse through these systems and to pursue their right for safeguards.

It also demonstrates how these technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They accomplish the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of distributed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by simply hindering these people from being able to view the channels of safety. It further argues that examines of securitization and victimization should be put together with an insight into the disciplinary mechanisms worth mentioning technologies, in which migrants happen to be turned into data-generating subjects exactly who are self-disciplined by their reliability on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal knowledge, the article states that these solutions have an inherent obstructiveness. They have a double impact: even though they aid to expedite the asylum procedure, they also generate it difficult with respect to refugees to navigate these types of systems. They are positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to bogus decisions manufactured by non-governmental stars, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their circumstances. Moreover, they pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in erroneous or discriminatory outcomes.

Back To Top