After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures around Europe, new technologies are actually reviving these types of systems. By lie detection tools tested at the boundary to a system for verifying documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of solutions is being applied to asylum applications. This article explores how these solutions have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. It reveals just how asylum seekers will be transformed into pressured hindered techno-users: They are asked to abide by a series of techno-bureaucratic steps also to keep up with unstable tiny within criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs the capacity to get around these devices and to follow their right for coverage.
It also displays how these kinds of technologies happen to be embedded in refugee governance: They facilitate the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of dispersed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by hindering them from accessing the stations of security. It www.ascella-llc.com/the-counseling-services-offers-free-confidential-counseling-services-to-enrolled-students/ further argues that studies of securitization and victimization should be combined with an insight in the disciplinary mechanisms of those technologies, by which migrants will be turned into data-generating subjects who also are disciplined by their reliance on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal understanding, the article states that these systems have an natural obstructiveness. There is a double impact: whilst they assist with expedite the asylum procedure, they also make it difficult just for 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 celebrities, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their instances. Moreover, they pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in inaccurate or discriminatory outcomes.