After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures across Europe, fresh technologies have become reviving these systems. Right from lie detection tools examined at the border to a program for validating documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of systems is being used in asylum applications. This article is exploring just how these systems have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. This reveals how asylum seekers will be transformed into forced hindered techno-users: They are asked to abide by a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and keep up with capricious tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs all their capacity to run these devices and to follow their right for safeguard.
It also illustrates how these types of technologies are embedded in refugee governance: They help the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a whirlwind of dispersed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity simply by hindering these people from being able to view the stations of safety. It www.ascella-llc.com/what-is-the-due-diligence-data-room further states that studies of securitization and victimization should be combined with an insight in to the disciplinary mechanisms worth mentioning technologies, by which migrants happen to be turned into data-generating subjects who are regimented by their reliance on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal expertise, the article states that these technologies have an inherent obstructiveness. They have a double impact: although they help to expedite the asylum procedure, they also produce it difficult for refugees to navigate these kinds of systems. They are positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to illegitimate decisions of non-governmental stars, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their conditions. Moreover, that they pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.
No comments yet.