Fact Check: Rich countries should scrap the asylum system entirely.

Fact Check: "Rich countries should scrap the asylum system entirely."

What We Know

The claim that "rich countries should scrap the asylum system entirely" is a contentious one that has been discussed in various contexts. According to a recent article in The Economist, the asylum system as it currently stands is criticized for being ineffective and outdated. The article argues that the rules governing asylum arose haphazardly, originally tailored to European contexts and failing to adapt adequately to modern migration challenges (source-1). The UN Refugee Convention of 1951, which established the framework for asylum, was initially limited to Europe and was later extended globally in 1967. This historical context suggests that the asylum system may not be well-suited to current global migration patterns.

Additionally, the global asylum system is reportedly "falling apart," with a significant increase in claims for asylum in wealthy countries, reaching 2.7 million new applications in 2023 alone (source-2). This surge indicates that the existing system is under strain and may require reform rather than outright abolition.

Analysis

The assertion that rich countries should completely eliminate the asylum system overlooks the complexities of international law and humanitarian obligations. While the current asylum framework has flaws, including lengthy processing times and potential misuse by non-qualified applicants (source-4), scrapping it entirely could lead to significant humanitarian consequences. The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning individuals to places where they face serious threats to their life or freedom, is a cornerstone of international refugee law.

Critics of the asylum system argue that it should be reformed to better distinguish between asylum seekers and economic migrants, suggesting that those who travel from safe countries to richer ones should not qualify for asylum (source-1). This perspective highlights the need for a more nuanced approach that balances the protection of genuine refugees with the realities of migration.

However, the suggestion to scrap the system entirely is extreme and does not account for the ongoing global refugee crises, where millions are displaced due to conflict, persecution, and environmental disasters (source-7). A complete abolition could leave vulnerable populations without any legal means of protection.

Conclusion

The claim that rich countries should scrap the asylum system entirely is Partially True. While there are valid criticisms regarding the current asylum framework's effectiveness and adaptability, the complete abolition of the system would likely result in significant humanitarian issues. A more balanced approach would involve reforming the asylum system to address its shortcomings while maintaining protections for those genuinely in need.

Sources

1. Scrap the asylum system—and build something better. The Economist
2. The global asylum system is falling apart. The Economist
3. 10 Top Countries with Welcoming Asylum Policies in 2025. Editorial Ge
4. A New Immigration System To Safeguard America's Security, Expand Economic Growth, and Make Us Stronger. American Progress
5. Asylum Report 2025. European Union Agency for Asylum
6. Asylum Report 2025 | European Union Agency for Asylum. EUA
7. Projected global resettlement needs 2025. UNHCR
8. A new era for Europe's migration and asylum management. EUA