After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures across Europe, new technologies have become reviving these kinds of systems. From lie detection tools analyzed at the edge to a system for confirming documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of technology is being utilized for asylum applications. This article explores www.ascella-llc.com/asylum-procedure-advice/ how these technology have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. It reveals how asylum seekers are transformed into forced hindered techno-users: They are asked to adhere to a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and also to keep up with capricious tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs their very own capacity to steer these devices and to follow their legal right for security.
It also displays how these kinds of technologies are embedded in refugee governance: They assist in the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a whirlwind of dispersed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by hindering them from being able to access the programs of proper protection. It further argues that examines of securitization and victimization should be put together with an insight in the disciplinary mechanisms of such technologies, through which migrants are 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 solutions have an inherent obstructiveness. There is a double result: whilst they help to expedite the asylum procedure, they also help to make it difficult just for refugees to navigate these types of systems. They are simply positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes all of them vulnerable to illegitimate decisions of non-governmental stars, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their instances. Moreover, that they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in inaccurate or discriminatory outcomes.
