Systems and Asylum Procedures
After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures throughout Europe, new technologies have become reviving these systems. From lie recognition tools examined at the line to a system for verifying documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of systems is being included in asylum applications. This article is exploring how these systems have reshaped the ways asylum procedures are conducted. This reveals just how asylum seekers will be transformed into required hindered techno-users: They are asked to comply with a series of techno-bureaucratic steps also to keep up with unpredictable tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs their capacity to browse through these devices and to go after their legal right for safety.
It also shows how these types of technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They aid the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of distributed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity simply by hindering them from getting at the channels of safeguard. It further states that studies of securitization and victimization should be put together with an insight in to the disciplinary www.ascella-llc.com/the-counseling-services-offers-free-confidential-counseling-services-to-enrolled-students/ mechanisms of technologies, in which migrants will be turned into data-generating subjects exactly who are self-disciplined by their reliance on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal know-how, the article argues that these systems have an inherent obstructiveness. There is a double impact: although they assist to expedite the asylum method, they also generate it difficult pertaining to refugees to navigate these types of systems. They are positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes them vulnerable to illegitimate decisions manufactured by non-governmental stars, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their circumstances. Moreover, they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.
