I don’t even think you’re wrong, but I suspect though that the burden of having to show up first is a very imperfect solution to a very real problem. Namely: pretty much the whole population of some countries would very much like to apply for asylum in any Western country that would have them. I suspect most regular people in the bottom-third of countries (whether ranked by lack of wealth, by violence, or overall human rights abuses) would claim, rightly, that they are at risk of starvation or violence and as such, need asylum. So, you can hand out forms at the border all you want. The West doesn’t have enough decent “temporary facilities” to warehouse the whole population of Somalia, El Salvador, etc. And what’s worse is, we know they have a valid point! Most of these asylum-seekers would pass their court hearings in a just system. but so far, no democracy has yet proven willing to just open their borders, which would need to be the endgame of a system which would drastically increase the total number of asylum seekers.
My only point: It’s a complex problem with zero happy outcomes, and people shouldn’t act like a quick, cheap fix will solve it. It just moves the problem somewhere else. Actually solving it would take trillions of dollars that most taxpayers don’t want to spend.
I think you are wrong. The way we handle asylum seeking currently is the worst possible way short of wars and murders. We are actively deferring the problem to criminals. And not just any criminals, but the worst of the worst, human traffickers. This is like the war on drugs, but instead of drugs, the product is human beings.
Criminalizing border crossing does not stop border crossing, it only stops legal border crossing, and as we see, people attempt illegal border crossings all the time. This leads to a deadly industry of human trafficking which is causing more deaths in Europe than terrorism (excluding Russian state terrorism in a war zone).
As of now there is nothing stopping the whole country of Somalia, El Salvador, etc. from arriving legally at a border crossing in Europe, Mexico, etc. If border crossings were legalized this wouldn’t change. Sure more people might attempt to seek asylum, but the consequences of failing would be far less severe as currently. And I think any prediction that western systems would fall apart at the prospects are fear mongering. There are no evidence any of that would happen. And any arguments in favor of such failures are ultimately based on vibes.
> The West doesn’t have enough decent “temporary facilities” to warehouse the whole population of Somalia, El Salvador, etc.
> Actually solving it would take trillions of dollars that most taxpayers don’t want to spend.
So spend the trillions, build those facilities. But I doubt this is the issue. We certainly had the facilities when the covid pandemic stopped the tourism industry, yet we didn’t use them. And I don’t think this will cost trillions of dollars.
Europe actually has experience with open borders, and the experience is a resounding success. There are no negatives, and there are a bunch of positives. And no, the whole country of Romania does not migrate to Norway as a result. But I’m not even calling for open borders here (even though I want them open). The humanitarian disaster at the European borders calls for immediate action and we don’t have time for a complicated policy change.
If temporary facilities for asylum seekers are too expensive for your liking, than don’t offer them. Mandate that asylum seekers provide their own accommodation (effectively offload it to charities) during the asylum application process. If you do that than just expect the homeless population to skyrocket. Personally I would favor the state offering temporary facilities (added benefit is you create a bunch of new jobs for your now bigger labor pool).
My only point: It’s a complex problem with zero happy outcomes, and people shouldn’t act like a quick, cheap fix will solve it. It just moves the problem somewhere else. Actually solving it would take trillions of dollars that most taxpayers don’t want to spend.