Throughout the western world, illegal migration advocates have hit on the idea of declaring all migrants “asylum seekers.” Under international agreements these claimants are allowed to apply for asylum in the countries where they arrive.
Asylum once was viewed as a status for people who could prove that they, as individuals, faced a danger of political persecution. Over time, however, it has come to mean a status that masses can claim if they feel any dissatisfaction with their homelands. Illegal immigration advocates promote this interpretation to allow entry of the “asylum seekers.” Once they enter, these advocates encourage them to stay, regardless of the outcomes of their cases.
Its time to rethink asylum policy, says an article in the current issue of Limen, the journal of the International Network for Immigration Research (INIR). It states that “The dramatic political, social, and technological changes since World War II have made the asylum regime established by the 1951 Refugee Convention unsustainable. Because asylum is seen as a ‘right’, it has become a challenge – arguably an existential challenge – to the sovereignty of developed nations.
“The measures proposed or taken so far have failed to address the fundamental contradiction between international asylum rules and modern conditions. The beginning of a solution, then, must be to withdraw from multilateral treaties that relate to asylum and for each nation to develop its own asylum policies based on its own interests.”
Read more at cis.org