Pro Autist Alapitvany – Székelyudvarhelyen és környékén élő autizmussal élők és családjaik életminőségének javítása

Systems and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic stopped many asylum procedures throughout Europe, fresh technologies have become reviving these systems. Coming from lie detection tools analyzed at the edge to a program for verifying documents and transcribes selection interviews, a wide range of technologies is being utilised in asylum applications. This article is exploring just how these solutions have reshaped the ways asylum procedures happen to be conducted. That reveals how asylum seekers happen to be transformed into compelled hindered techno-users: They are asked to comply with a series of techno-bureaucratic steps also to keep up with unpredictable tiny changes in criteria and deadlines. This obstructs their particular capacity to find their way these devices and to pursue their legal right for cover.

It also demonstrates how these types of technologies are embedded in refugee governance: They accomplish 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 them from being able to access the channels of protection. It further states that analyses of securitization and victimization should be coupled with an insight into the disciplinary mechanisms of those technologies, through which migrants happen to be turned into data-generating subjects who have are disciplined by their reliability on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal know-how, the article states that these systems have an inherent obstructiveness. There is a double effect: while they assist to expedite the asylum process, they also generate it difficult with respect to refugees to navigate these types of systems. They are simply positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes them vulnerable to illegitimate decisions created by non-governmental actors, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their instances. Moreover, that they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ which may result in incorrect or discriminatory outcomes.