After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures across Europe, new technologies are reviving these systems. By lie detection tools examined at the border to a program for validating documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of technologies is being utilized in asylum applications. This article is exploring just how these technology have reshaped the ways asylum procedures will be conducted. It reveals just how asylum seekers will be transformed into required hindered techno-users: They are asked to abide by a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and also to keep up with capricious tiny within criteria and deadlines. This kind of obstructs all their capacity to browse through these devices and to go after their legal right for safety.
It also displays how these types of technologies are embedded in refugee governance: They assist in the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of spread technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by hindering these people from interacting with the programs of security. It further states that analyses of securitization and victimization should be put together with an insight in to the disciplinary mechanisms of such technologies, in which migrants are turned into data-generating subjects so, who are self-disciplined by their dependence on technology.
Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal know-how, the article states that these systems have an natural obstructiveness. They have a double impact: the counseling services offers although they assistance to expedite the asylum method, they also help to make it difficult just for refugees to navigate these systems. They may be positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to illegitimate decisions created by non-governmental actors, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their instances. Moreover, they will pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in erroneous or discriminatory outcomes.
