Solutions and Asylum Procedures


After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures across Europe, fresh technologies are now reviving these types of systems. Right from lie diagnosis tools analyzed at the edge to a system for validating documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of solutions is being utilized in asylum applications. This article is exploring how these technology have reshaped the ways asylum procedures happen to be conducted. That reveals just how asylum seekers are transformed into forced hindered techno-users: They are asked to abide by a series read review of techno-bureaucratic steps also to keep up with unstable tiny within criteria and deadlines. This obstructs their very own capacity to understand these systems and to pursue their right for protection.

It also displays how these kinds of technologies are embedded in refugee governance: They help in 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 view the stations of protection. It further argues that analyses of securitization and victimization should be put together with an insight into the disciplinary mechanisms for these technologies, by which migrants happen to be turned into data-generating subjects who all are regimented by their dependence on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal knowledge, the article states that these systems have an natural obstructiveness. There is a double effect: although they assistance to expedite the asylum method, they also make it difficult to get refugees to navigate these types of systems. They can be positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes them vulnerable to illegitimate decisions of non-governmental celebrities, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their cases. Moreover, they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in erroneous or discriminatory outcomes.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *