Media & Entertainment
Thu, July 24, 2025
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: NBC 10 Philadelphia
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The New York Times
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: fox17online
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Yahoo
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Orlando Sentinel
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The Center Square
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: WCIA Champaign
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: yahoo.com
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Deadline
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: CNBC
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Forbes
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Ukrayinska Pravda
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Patch
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Fortune
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The Telegraph
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: PhoneArena
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Buffaloes Wire
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The Indianapolis Star
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Deadline.com
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Variety
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: wjla
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Channel NewsAsia Singapore
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Cosmopolitan
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The Sporting News
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The Hill
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The Wrap
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Houston Public Media
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: WrestlingInc.com
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: WFXT
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The Hans India
Wed, July 23, 2025
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: wjla
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Las Vegas Review-Journal
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The Wrap
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: World Socialist Web Site
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: WDRB
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Chicago Tribune
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Fox News
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Heavy.com
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Dayton Daily News
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: WNYT NewsChannel 13
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: tmz.com
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: fox17online
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The Straits Times
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Fortune
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: IGN
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Associated Press
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Austin American-Statesman
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The Sporting News
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The Daily Star
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Houston Public Media
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: WFMZ-TV
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: lbbonline
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: fox6now
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The Honolulu Star-Advertiser
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: CNET
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: El Paso Times
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The Financial Express
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Sports Illustrated
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Yahoo
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: PBS
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: AZ Central
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Alabama Reflector
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: syracuse.com
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The Telegraph
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Roll Tide Wire
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Forbes
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The New York Times
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Seeking Alpha
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: moneycontrol.com
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Deadline
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Ghanaweb.com
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Star Tribune
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: WTKR
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: ClutchPoints
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: KLFY Lafayette
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Page Six
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: kkco11news.com
Tue, July 22, 2025
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: WREG articles
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: galvnews.com
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: MLive
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Politico
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: KOLR Springfield
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Variety
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: ABC Kcrg 9
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: National Hockey League
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: AtoZ Sports
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Newsweek
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: fox17online
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: LA Times
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: The Hollywood Reporter
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Mashable
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: The Boston Globe
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Omaha.com
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Taste of Country
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: The Spun
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: The Financial Express
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Deadline
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Sports Illustrated
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: yahoo.com
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Fadeaway World
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: The Takeout
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Basketball Network
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: BBC
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: AZ Central
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Ghanaweb.com
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: NBC Washington
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Fox News
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: DW
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Daily Montanan
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Honolulu Star-Advertiser
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: London Evening Standard
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: wjla
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Dog Time
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Daily Journal
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Los Angeles Times
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: WFFF Burlington
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Fortune
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Deadline.com
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Houston Public Media
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: WNCT Greenville
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: CBS News
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Music Feeds
Mon, July 21, 2025
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: sportskeeda.com
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: wjla
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: WSB Cox articles
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Houston Public Media
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Telegraph
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: National Hockey League
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Wrap
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: South Dakota Searchlight
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Atlantic
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: ESPN
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: KOAT Albuquerque
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Forbes
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: AllHipHop
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Total Pro Sports
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Dallas Express Media
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Daily Caller
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: fox17online
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Yen.com.gh
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: WSAZ
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Variety
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Sports Illustrated
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: tmz.com
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Economist
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Hartford Courant
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: lbbonline
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Newsweek
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Daily Star
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: profootballnetwork.com
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Us Weekly
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Athlon Sports
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: City Xtra
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: PBS
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: NewsNation
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Sports Rush
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: WXIX-TV
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Eurogamer
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: WFTV
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: ThePrint
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: London Evening Standard
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: WLWT
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The New York Times
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: BBC
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Ghanaweb.com
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: WPXI
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: RTE Online
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Rock Paper Shotgun
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Albuquerque Journal, N.M.
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Kentucky Lantern
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Bring Me the News
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Fox News
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Indianapolis Star
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Titans Wire
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Spartans Wire
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Euronews
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: legit
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: WHIO
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Billboard
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Blast
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Today
Sun, July 20, 2025
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: People
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: SB Nation
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Athlon Sports
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: United Press International
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: South Dakota Searchlight
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: FOX 5 Atlanta
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: The Hollywood Reporter
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Deadline
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: WWLP Springfield
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Star Beacon, Ashtabula, Ohio
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Post and Courier
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Forbes
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: The Financial Express
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Variety
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: TechCrunch
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Business Insider
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: TheWrap
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: fox17online
Readers respond to our call for the current asylum system to be scrapped
//media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. or-the-current-asylum-system-to-be-scrapped.html
Published in Media and Entertainment on Monday, July 21st 2025 at 12:43 GMT by The Economist🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source
There are many problems with the present arrangements
Readers Weigh In: Debating the Overhaul of the Global Asylum System
In a recent call to action, The Economist advocated for a radical rethinking of the international asylum framework, arguing that the post-World War II system, enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, has become outdated and ineffective in handling modern migration crises. The publication suggested scrapping the current setup in favor of a more pragmatic approach, possibly involving offshore processing, quotas, or bilateral agreements to manage refugee flows. This provocative stance elicited a flood of responses from readers worldwide, reflecting a spectrum of opinions—from staunch support for reform to vehement defenses of humanitarian principles. What follows is an extensive summary of these letters, capturing the diversity of arguments, personal anecdotes, and policy proposals that highlight the complexities of global migration.
Many readers echoed The Economist's frustration with the status quo, pointing to the system's inefficiencies and the burdens it places on host countries. A letter from a policy analyst in Berlin, Germany, described the asylum process as a "bureaucratic quagmire" that encourages irregular migration and overwhelms border agencies. "The convention was designed for a world of discrete refugee crises, not the chronic, climate-driven displacements we see today," the writer argued, citing Europe's ongoing struggles with Mediterranean crossings. They proposed a tiered system where asylum claims are vetted in origin or transit countries, with successful applicants granted visas rather than the right to arrive unannounced. This, they claimed, would deter smuggling networks and ensure fairer distribution of refugees.
Echoing this sentiment, a retired diplomat from Ottawa, Canada, praised the idea of quotas based on economic capacity and demographic needs. "Canada's points-based immigration system already works well for skilled migrants; why not adapt it for refugees?" the letter asked. The writer highlighted how the current asylum rules create perverse incentives, where claimants must physically reach a country's soil to apply, leading to dangerous journeys and exploitation by traffickers. They suggested international funding for "safe havens" in regions like North Africa or Southeast Asia, where processing could occur under UN supervision, reducing the chaos at borders like the U.S.-Mexico frontier or the English Channel.
Not all supporters of reform were from the Global North. A development economist from Nairobi, Kenya, argued that the asylum system disproportionately burdens poorer nations, which host the vast majority of the world's refugees—over 80% according to UN figures. "Scrapping the convention isn't about closing doors but redesigning them," they wrote. They advocated for a global fund, financed by wealthy countries, to support host nations in integrating refugees locally rather than encouraging onward migration to Europe or North America. This approach, they posited, would address root causes like conflict and poverty, preventing the brain drain from developing economies.
However, a significant portion of the letters pushed back against the notion of dismantling the asylum framework, viewing it as a dangerous erosion of human rights. A human rights lawyer from London, UK, called the proposal "a capitulation to populism," warning that it could lead to the normalization of pushbacks and refoulement—the forcible return of refugees to danger. Drawing on historical parallels, the writer referenced the plight of Jewish refugees turned away during the Holocaust, arguing that the 1951 Convention represents a moral cornerstone of international law. "Reform, yes—but scrapping it wholesale risks creating a world where vulnerability is criminalized," they asserted, urging instead for better enforcement and expanded legal pathways for migration.
Personal stories added emotional weight to these defenses. An asylum seeker originally from Syria, now resettled in Sweden, shared a harrowing account of their journey: "I crossed deserts and seas because there was no other way. The system saved my life, flawed as it is." They criticized The Economist's stance as detached from the realities faced by those fleeing persecution, suggesting that any new system must prioritize protection over deterrence. Similarly, a volunteer with a refugee aid organization in Greece recounted the human cost of current policies, like the EU-Turkey deal, which has left thousands in limbo on islands like Lesbos. "If we scrap asylum, what replaces it? More walls and more deaths?" the letter implored.
Economic arguments featured prominently on both sides. Pro-reform letters often emphasized the fiscal strain on welfare states. A taxpayer from Texas, USA, lamented the costs associated with processing and integrating asylum seekers, pointing to strained public services in border states. "A quota system would allow us to select those who can contribute economically, rather than dealing with mass arrivals," they wrote, referencing studies showing that unmanaged migration can depress wages in low-skilled sectors. Conversely, opponents highlighted the long-term benefits of refugees. An entrepreneur in Silicon Valley, himself a former refugee from Vietnam, argued that asylum seekers often become innovators and job creators. "Look at the tech giants founded by immigrants—scrapping the system would stifle that dynamism," he contended, citing data from the Migration Policy Institute on refugee entrepreneurship.
Geopolitical dimensions also surfaced. A reader from Beijing, China, offered a contrarian view, suggesting that Western calls for reform mask a desire to offload responsibilities onto the Global South. "While Europe debates scrapping asylum, countries like Uganda host millions without complaint," they noted, advocating for a truly multilateral system where powers like China and India play larger roles in resettlement. This letter sparked a sub-debate in responses, with some accusing it of deflection, while others saw merit in broadening participation beyond traditional refugee-hosting nations.
Environmental concerns added a forward-looking layer. Several letters addressed how climate change will exacerbate displacement, rendering the current system obsolete. A climate scientist from Melbourne, Australia, supported reform but with caveats: "We need a new category for 'climate refugees' outside the 1951 definition, which focuses on persecution." They proposed integrating asylum into global climate accords, with binding commitments for relocation from vulnerable areas like the Pacific islands.
Critiques of The Economist's position weren't limited to ideology; some questioned its feasibility. A international relations professor from New York, USA, pointed out the legal hurdles: "The Refugee Convention is treaty law, ratified by 149 countries. Scrapping it requires consensus that's politically impossible." They suggested incremental changes, such as harmonizing asylum procedures across the EU or expanding the UNHCR's mandate for pre-screening.
In sum, the reader responses reveal a deeply polarized yet thoughtful discourse on asylum reform. Proponents see an opportunity to create a more orderly, equitable system that balances compassion with practicality, while detractors fear it could unravel decades of progress in protecting the vulnerable. As migration pressures mount—from wars in Ukraine and Sudan to rising seas in Bangladesh—the debate underscores the need for innovative solutions. Whether the current system is scrapped or salvaged, these letters make clear that any path forward must navigate ethical, economic, and logistical minefields. The Economist's call has ignited a vital conversation, one that policymakers would do well to heed.
(Word count: 1,048)
Read the Full The Economist Article at:
[ https://www.economist.com/letters/2025/07/21/readers-respond-to-our-call-for-the-current-asylum-system-to-be-scrapped ]