Technologies and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures across Europe, new technologies are now reviving these kinds of systems. Via lie diagnosis tools tested at the edge to a program for validating documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of systems is being utilized in asylum applications. This article is exploring just how these systems have reshaped the ways asylum procedures are conducted. This reveals how asylum seekers happen to be transformed into required hindered techno-users: They are asked to abide by a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and also to keep up with unstable tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs all their capacity to navigate these devices and to pursue their right for protection.

It also demonstrates how these kinds of technologies happen to be embedded in refugee governance: They assist in the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of spread technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by hindering these people from getting at the channels of safeguards. It further states that analyses of securitization and victimization should be put together with an insight in to the disciplinary portals of the board of directors for advising migrant workers mechanisms worth mentioning technologies, through which migrants will be turned into data-generating subjects who all are disciplined by their reliability on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal understanding, the article argues that these solutions have an natural obstructiveness. There is a double result: although they assist with expedite the asylum procedure, they also generate it difficult with regards to refugees to navigate these systems. They are simply positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes all of them vulnerable to bogus decisions manufactured by non-governmental actors, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their conditions. Moreover, they will pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.