N※N

Readers respond to our call for the current asylum system to be scrapped

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asylum framework, arguing that the post-World War II system, enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, has become outdated and ineffective in handling modern migration crises.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 ]