The Economist calls for a new asylum system in wealthy nations

The renowned British magazine The Economist has proposed that wealthy countries establish a new and better asylum system, separating the right to asylum from labor migration.

Briefly mentioning the history of the UN Refugee Convention, the magazine pointed out that the number of countries adhering to this convention is steadily decreasing today.

Noting the hardening stance of the West and the convergence of views between social democrats and right-wing populists in Europe, The Economist argued that the asylum system is no longer working.

“The system designed for post-war Europe cannot cope with a world where conflicts are widespread, travel is cheap, and wage inequalities are vast,” the magazine stated, writing that approximately 900 million people wish to migrate permanently. Since it is nearly impossible for a citizen of a poor country to legally migrate to a wealthy one, most do so without permission.

The Economist said, “In the last two decades, many have discovered that asylum is a back door. Instead of secretly crossing the border as they used to, they approach border guards and claim asylum. They know that it will take years for this claim to be decided, and during that time, they can disappear into the shadows and find work.”

Arguing that “voters” are right to think the system is being abused, The Economist recalled that the majority of asylum claims in the European Union are now rejected outright.

Pointing to the “fear of border chaos,” the magazine asserted that this fear “has fueled the rise of populism” from Brexit to Donald Trump and “poisoned the debate on legal migration.”

“To create a system that provides security to those in need and also a reasonable flow of labor migration, policymakers must separate these two issues,” wrote The Economist.

Stating that approximately 123 million people have been displaced due to conflict, disaster, or persecution—a figure three times higher than in 2010, “partly because wars last longer”—The Economist argued that while all these people have the right to seek a safe life, this “safety” does not mean access to the labor market of a wealthy country.

According to The Economist, “Resettlement in rich countries can be no more than a tiny part of the solution. In 2023, OECD countries received 2.7 million asylum applications. Although this is a record number, it is very small compared to the scale of the problem.”

At this point, the magazine wrote that the option of “readmission agreements with third countries,” which EU countries in particular have been trying to implement for some time, is the “most pragmatic option.”

Under this plan, described as “offering more refugees a sanctuary close to their homes,” asylum seekers would stay in “the first safe country or regional bloc they set foot in.”

The Economist continued:

“Refugees who travel shorter distances are more likely to one day return home. They are also more likely to be accepted by hosts who are culturally closer to them and aware that they have sought refuge in the first shelter they found after fleeing a disaster. This is why Europeans have largely accepted Ukrainians, Turks have been generous to Syrians, and Chadians to Sudanese.”

Claiming that “caring for refugees in places close to their homes is often much cheaper,” the magazine pointed out that the UN refugee agency spends less than $1 per day on each refugee in Chad. “Given their limited budgets, rich countries could help far more people by adequately funding refugee agencies instead of housing refugees in first-world hostels or hiring armies of lawyers to defend their cases,” it asserted.

The magazine also called on host countries to be “generously helped” and encouraged to “allow refugees to support themselves by working,” as they are increasingly doing.

Writing that “compassionate Westerners” may feel an “urge to help” refugees arriving on their shores, The Economist claimed, “But if the journey is long, arduous, and costly, those who complete it are often not the most desperate, but the male, healthy, and relatively affluent.”

The Economist continued:

“Refugees who fled the Syrian war to neighboring Turkey represented a broad cross-section of Syrians; those who reached Europe were 15 times more likely to have a university degree. When Germany opened its doors to Syrians in 2015-16, 1 million refugees who had established a safe life in Turkey decided to migrate to Europe for higher wages. Many have led productive lives, but it is not clear why they were prioritized over other, sometimes more qualified, refugees who wanted to seize the same opportunity.”

Arguing that “voters” have made it clear they want to choose whom they accept and that this does not mean “accepting everyone who arrives and claims asylum,” the magazine made a recommendation to wealthy countries, stressing that if they want to stop such migration, they must change the incentives.

Advocating that those who migrate from a safe country to a wealthier one should not be considered for asylum and that arrivals should be sent to a third country for processing, The Economist said, “If governments want to host refugees from distant places, they can select them at the sources where the UN registers those fleeing war zones.”

Noting that deals can be made to win the cooperation of third-country governments, The Economist advised wealthy countries to act together, as the EU has begun to do, and added, “Once it is understood that those who arrive uninvited have no advantage, the number of such arrivals will fall.”

Describing this as the “politics of the possible,” the magazine suggested that this would restore order at the border, thereby creating the political space for a calmer discussion of labor migration.

Also arguing that wealthy countries would benefit from more foreign talent, the magazine suggested that most of these countries want “young labor to work on farms and in care homes,” and that a regular “flow of talent” would make both host countries and the migrants themselves more prosperous.

The Economist‘s assessment concluded as follows:

“Dealing with the backlog of irregular migrants who have already arrived will still be difficult. Trump’s policy of mass deportation is both cruel and expensive. A much better solution would be to allow those who have put down roots to stay, while securing the borders and changing the incentives for future migrants. If liberals do not build a better system, populists will build a worse one.”