Asylum services are extremely lengthy, frustrating and adding to the hardship of asylum-seekers that are trying to re-build their life. Part of the problem is that asylum services are overwhelmed with more demands than they are equipped to handle. We are looking to shorten processing times using data analysis and inference.
Brainstorm 5 core values:
- (more) Justice through Transparency (i.e. in the decision-making chain)
- Consider negative impact (i.e. consider access/marginalization when thinking about digitalization of public services)
- Rethink representations (all the more important as representations are heavily present in immigration/asylum topics)
- Co-design and dialogue with every individual / stakeholder involved in the asylum process, from asylum seekers to judges making asylum judgements.
- Shape alternative future
Convening:
A 1-day consultation with every stakeholder involved in the asylum process (in Brazil)
Goal: based a on draft [ongoing], consolidate a holistic map of the asylum process in the country. The objective is to identify bottlenecks and assess feasibility of solutions.
Who: 1-2 asylum seeker (waiting for decision), 1-2 refugees (accepted as refugees), 1-2 officials involved in registration of asylum request, 1-2 ‘Eligibility officials’ (interviews, analysis), 1-2 officials in the decision committee, 1-2 representatives from UNHCR
Where: São Paulo, in offices of asylum services (needs to be perceived as an ‘official’ effort, but still be accessible to all – will need to provide commute support for refugees).
(A) I found ‘justice through transparency’ to be an interesting and challenging value– it strikes me as a nuanced and important point that transparency is paramount in any system with power and influence to change the lives of people, and it seems uncertainty in a process like this is hard on asylum seekers, citizens, and decision makers alike. The word ‘justice’ in this context was surprising to me. It’s not immediately apparent to me how justice is directly tied to transparency (I think of justice as fair/equitable treatment based on merit– every asylum seeker is treated equally poorly by the uncertainty). I assume it drives at a larger, ‘world’ definition of justice– which raises interesting questions in my mind about Justice and the duty of the Brazilian government to non-Brazilian citizens, and how we think about/apply the word ‘Justice’ to these kinds of issues?
(B) A new value to consider might be one centered around the technology itself — altering a pre-existing system with a technological speed-up could serve to entrench whatever process is sped up. It’s also interesting to me that this is framed as speeding up the process, not necessarily making better asylum decisions (assuming some percentage of people are denied), which implies that perhaps the complexity of the asylum decision process in Brazil is designed equitably but works slowly.
(C) I think it makes a lot of sense to have this kind of convening and it would likely be fruitful for all parties to be in a room together. I think the presence of some data science/technology experts (a role many here at the media lab could help with) would further improve the outcome.