Role of the Western world in the refugee crisis i

[politicus]

I will return to this later. But my point of departure is:

So why is it that these Eritrean or Somalian asylum seekers insist on claiming asylum only in Central or Northern Europe? There are dozens of other countries in between. The answer, of course, is that these are for the large part economic migrants, not actual refugees fleeing from personal persecution.

"Most of them are both, which is part of the problem. The UN refugee convention was created to take care of political dissidents from the Eastern bloc (mainly), whereas modern refugee streams from conflict areas have more in common with, say, Eastern European Jews fleeing to America in the late 1800s. They were both persecuted in their hellish homelands and in search of a better future for the children. The problem is we do not have another America to fill. We are in dire need of a total rethinking of the global refugee system, but there is no one to take charge of it.The UN is hopelessly inefficient.

IMO the distribution of refugees should not depend on what countries they were able to reach by paying large sums to traffickers, but be allocated on a need basis."

There are certain dilemmas:

1) Should the Western world try to stop countries from falling apart (we have not been very good at it, but what is the alternative? More failed states means ever more refugees).

2) Should it be possible to seek asylum in rich countrues by arriving there? Or should application for asylum in the West be handled by the UN in refugee camps in the areas bordering conflict zones?

As it is now we reward traffickers and it becomes a matter of money where you get in - not need. Generally mentally and (severely) psychically ill, disabled, severe torture victims  lone women, children,gays/queers should have preference.

3) Is it possible to make an international distribution based on a quota system, where some countries pay others to take their refugees?

If so, this would require a repatriation system where "queu-jumpers will be sent back to refugee camps in near areas if caught.

3a) What countries would it be possible to resettle large groups of refugees in? Do you think the US could take a substantial part? (if paid a partial compensation by EU, Japan, South Korea and other areas unwilling to accept mass immigration).

4) It is cheaper to help refugees in poor countries than in rich. Do you think that should be an aspect in refugee policy?

[politicus]

OK, thought experiment. You're an Eritrean refugee following the UN's rule that you reach the first safe country you can and file for asylum. You flee Eritrea into Ethiopia, a country with long-standing tensions with your homeland and humanitarian crises of its own. You proceed north into South Sudan, which is in a state of anarchic state collapse and civil war. You proceed north into Sudan, a country run by an indicted war criminal wanted by the ICC with a history of genocide in within the past decade. You continue north into either Libya, which is in a state of anarchy and civil war, or Egypt, which has undergone two revolutions in the past four years. You get on a boat and end up in...Italy? That would be your stopping point, but Italy is a Schengen country, so once you're there, why not move to some place where you can actually find work?

All that is well known and if unchanged will in all likelyhood lead to most European countries abandoning the refugee convention in the next couple of decades. So what is your point? That the concept of refugee status is inevitable doomed and all refugees will be treated as illegal immigrants in the future?

I was more interested in if any of you thought there was a chance to save the concept of refugee status and solve the current crisis through some kind of international cooperation.