After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures throughout Europe, fresh technologies are now reviving these types of systems. Coming from lie recognition tools tested at the edge to a program for confirming documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of technologies is being used in asylum applications. This article is exploring find more just how these systems have reshaped the ways asylum procedures happen to be conducted. It reveals just how asylum seekers will be transformed into obligated hindered techno-users: They are asked to abide by a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and to keep up with unforeseen tiny within criteria and deadlines. This obstructs their capacity to run these systems and to follow their legal right for protection.
It also demonstrates how these kinds of technologies are embedded in refugee governance: They help the 'circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a whirlwind of distributed technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by simply hindering all of them from being able to view the programs of safeguard. It further argues that examines of securitization and victimization should be put together with an insight in to the disciplinary mechanisms worth mentioning technologies, in which migrants happen to be turned into data-generating subjects who also are self-disciplined by their reliability on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal expertise, the article argues that these systems have an inherent obstructiveness. They have a double result: although they assist to expedite the asylum procedure, they also help to make it difficult to get refugees to navigate these systems. They are positioned in a 'knowledge deficit’ that makes all of them vulnerable to illegitimate decisions created by non-governmental stars, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their conditions. Moreover, they pose new risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in inaccurate or discriminatory outcomes.
0 komentarzy