Why do I oppose the Extraterritorial Asylum Process?

Extraterritorial asylum processes refer to the practice where countries manage and process asylum claims outside their own borders, often in third countries or offshore locations. Rather than allowing asylum seekers to enter the destination country to claim refuge, these processes intercept and relocate them, sometimes to remote islands or third nations, for claim processing. The goal is to limit the number of individuals physically arriving to request asylum on a country’s territory. Notable examples include Australia’s offshore processing centers in Nauru and Manus Island, the United States' Remain in Mexico policy, and the UK’s controversial proposal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. Denmark and Norway have also considered similar measures.

While these policies are often framed as necessary for migration control, they raise serious ethical and legal concerns. In this article, I explain why I oppose the extraterritorial asylum process, arguing that it undermines human rights, violates international law, and reflects a troubling amnesia regarding the West's own history of asylum-seeking.

Claiming Asylum is a Right Protected by International Law

The right to seek asylum is enshrined in international law, particularly in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, to which most countries in the world are signatories. These treaties affirm that anyone fleeing persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group has the right to seek asylum. Crucially, the convention prohibits refoulement, meaning refugees cannot be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.

People seek asylum for many reasons. Wars, oppressive regimes, persecution, violence, and natural disasters are common factors that force individuals to flee their homelands. Historically, asylum seekers have come from conflict zones like Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Venezuela, seeking safety in other countries.

What is often forgotten is that Europe and the Western world once experienced mass displacement themselves. During the two World Wars, millions of Europeans fled their homes seeking refuge in other parts of the world, including in the Global South. Countries like Tanzania and Egypt hosted European refugees. Egypt, for instance, provided shelter to thousands of Poles fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. Tanzania, too, offered refuge to Europeans during this era. The Western powers of the time, recognizing the devastation of war and persecution, were staunch advocates of asylum laws.

But the West has not only been a recipient of refugees; it has also benefited tremendously from them. Albert Einstein, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, revolutionized physics. Henry Kissinger, a refugee from Nazi persecution, became a key architect of U.S. foreign policy. The United States and Europe are home to many immigrants and refugees who have significantly contributed to their economic, cultural, and intellectual landscapes, from Madeleine Albright, the first female U.S. Secretary of State and a refugee from Czechoslovakia to Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, a refugee from the Soviet Union.?

The Fundamental Issues with Offshore Asylum Processing

While countries have the right to control their borders, there are fundamental problems with processing asylum claims offshore.

Violation of International Law

First and foremost, offshore asylum processing violates international law. The 1951 Refugee Convention guarantees that individuals have the right to seek asylum and have their claims heard in the country where they seek protection. Forcing people out of the country they intended to seek asylum in, without hearing their claims, breaches this right. Asylum seekers often have personal or familial ties to the country where they wish to seek refuge and deporting them to a third country denies them a fair hearing and the opportunity to seek refuge where they feel safest.

Forgotten History of Asylum

The West’s embrace of offshore asylum processing reveals an alarming forgetfulness of its own history. The same countries that once championed asylum protections in the wake of World War I and World War II now turn their backs on these principles. At a time when Europe was in chaos, asylum protections were essential to safeguard the innocent. Today, these protections are being eroded, and the victims are once again innocent human beings. The West seems to have forgotten that just as it once needed these protections, the world still does. It is the responsibility of all governments to offer a fair hearing to asylum seekers, and to protect those deserving of asylum.

The West’s Responsibility to share the Burden

Many proponents of offshore asylum processing argue that Western countries cannot bear the burden of accepting large numbers of refugees. However, the majority of the world’s refugees are already hosted by countries in the Global South—nations with far fewer resources than Europe or North America. Countries like Turkey, Pakistan, and Uganda host millions of refugees. It is both unjust and irresponsible for wealthy nations to refuse to share the burden carried by humanity due to global conflicts or natural disasters—many of which the West has contributed to through historical colonialism, resource extraction, or military intervention.

?Asylum as a Political Campaign Tool

Another troubling aspect of this trend is the political exploitation of asylum seekers. Instead of addressing the root causes of displacement—such as war, persecution, and climate change—Western politicians frequently use asylum seekers as scapegoats in election campaigns. This demonization fosters xenophobia and obscures the fact that conflict can affect any region. The Russia-Ukraine war is a tragic reminder that no part of this world is immune to war or displacement. Europe itself became the site of a massive refugee crisis as millions fled Ukraine, prompting Europe to quickly open its doors. Yet, this contrast highlights how differently asylum seekers from non-European countries are treated, exposing the inherent double standards in asylum policies.

?Stop Using Asylum as a Political Weapon

In conclusion, extraterritorial asylum processes represent a betrayal of the core values that the West once fought to uphold. By exporting asylum seekers to third countries and offshore facilities, Western nations are not only undermining international law but are also perpetuating a system that dehumanizes and abandons some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.

I call upon European and North American leaders to stop using asylum seekers as political pawns. Asylum is not a political issue—it is a human rights issue. Instead of treating asylum seekers as threats, let us remember that they are victims of forces beyond their control. It is time for the West to honor its legal and moral obligations and stop using asylum-seeking as a political weapon at the expense of innocent human beings who have already suffered enough.