According to international standard, asylees must stop and seek refuge in the first safe country. This first safe country is often next-door to where they came from, throwing cold water on their claims.
In the US, asylum seekers often cross through 10 safe countries before arriving in the US claiming they need asylum from a country thousands of miles and several countries in land border away.
The narrative of 'asylum' refuses to acknowledge these basic realities, to horrific effect.
> There is just one problem with this narrative: offshore processing did not stop asylum seekers from trying to reach Australia. Instead, Australia’s success lay in turning boats back to their country of origin before they reached Australian shores.
> Many readers will disagree that it is ever right to discourage people from seeking asylum in safe, developed countries. Nevertheless, there are three reasons to take Australia’s example seriously. The first is that many European voters want to reduce the number of asylum seekers coming to their countries, and their elected officials are looking for ways to do that. If they misunderstand the example they are trying to follow, they will spend billions of euros on an approach that is both less effective and less humane than it should be.
