Systems and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures across Europe, new technologies have become reviving these types of systems. Out of lie diagnosis tools examined at the edge to a system for validating documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of technologies is being found in asylum applications. This article is exploring how these systems have reshaped the ways asylum procedures are conducted. It reveals just how asylum seekers happen to be transformed into forced hindered techno-users: They are asked to abide by a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and also to keep up with unforeseen tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This obstructs their very own capacity to work these systems and to follow their legal right for safety.

It also demonstrates how these technologies happen to be embedded in refugee governance: They help the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a whirlwind of spread technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity simply by hindering them from being able to access the programs of safeguards. It www.ascella-llc.com/what-is-the-due-diligence-data-room further argues that studies of securitization and victimization should be along with an insight into the disciplinary mechanisms of such technologies, by which migrants happen to 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 knowledge, the article states that these technologies have an inherent obstructiveness. They have a double effect: even though they assistance to expedite the asylum method, they also produce it difficult designed for refugees to navigate these systems. They may be 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 circumstances. Moreover, that they pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.