After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures across Europe, new technologies are reviving these systems. Out of lie detection tools tested at the boundary to a system for verifying documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of solutions is being found in asylum applications. This article is exploring www.ascella-llc.com/portals-of-the-board-of-directors-for-advising-migrant-workers how these solutions have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. This reveals just how asylum seekers are transformed into pressured hindered techno-users: They are asked to comply with a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and also to keep up with unpredictable tiny within criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs all their capacity to run these systems and to pursue their legal right for coverage.
It also shows how these types of technologies are 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 interacting with the stations of security. It further argues that examines of securitization and victimization should be along with an insight in to the disciplinary mechanisms of these technologies, in which migrants are 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 knowledge, the article argues that these systems have an inherent obstructiveness. There is a double effect: when they help to expedite the asylum procedure, they also produce it difficult to get refugees to navigate these types of systems. They are positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes them vulnerable to bogus decisions manufactured 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.
