Rentfresh was built from the ground up as a bespoke property management company

Technology and Asylum Procedures

After the COVID-19 pandemic halted many asylum procedures throughout Europe, new technologies are reviving these types of systems. From lie recognition tools tested at the border to a system for confirming documents and transcribes interviews, a wide range of technologies is being utilized in asylum applications. This article explores how these technology have reshaped the ways asylum procedures happen to be conducted. That reveals just how asylum seekers happen to be transformed into required hindered techno-users: They are asked to comply with a series of techno-bureaucratic steps and keep up with unpredictable tiny within criteria and deadlines. This obstructs the capacity to browse these systems and to follow their legal right for coverage.

It also demonstrates how these types of technologies will be embedded in refugee governance: They help the ‘circuits of financial-humanitarianism’ that function through a flutter of spread technological requirements. These requirements increase asylum seekers’ socio-legal precarity by simply hindering all of them from accessing the programs of safeguard. It further argues that analyses of securitization and victimization should be along with an insight into the disciplinary mechanisms of these technologies, through which migrants will be turned into data-generating subjects who all are regimented by their reliability on technology.

Drawing on Foucault’s notion of power/knowledge and comarcal understanding, the article states that these technologies have an natural obstructiveness. They have a double impact: while they help to expedite the asylum procedure, they also generate it difficult with regards to refugees to navigate these types of systems. They are really positioned in a ‘knowledge deficit’ that makes these people vulnerable to illegitimate decisions manufactured by non-governmental actors, and ill-informed and unreliable narratives about their conditions. Moreover, they pose fresh risks of’machine mistakes’ that may result in inaccurate or discriminatory outcomes.