If individuals demonstrate that they are in danger and meet the requirements set by the host country, that country must accept them. This principle, established after World War II, aimed to rebuild societies for the greater good, but has not always been upheld. Recently, Western powers have been weakening this obligation, which they once viewed as essential for global stability. This trend reached a new low when Britain announced a plan to send thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda instead of considering their claims. Britain did not come up with the idea of placing refugees and asylum-seekers in distant facilities. European governments have been paying foreign leaders in countries such as Sudan and Libya to detain migrants on their behalf for many years. Australia also delegates this task to various island nations that are sometimes referred to as its gulag archipelago. The United States was actually the first to implement this practice in 1991, when it redirected boats carrying Haitians to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The increase in right-wing populist movements, the backlash in Europe against a surge of migration in 2015, and the coronavirus pandemic have all sped up this practice, as well as others like building walls, employing armed patrols, and implementing policies of deterrence that intentionally heighten the risks of the journey for migrants. The global refugee system is not completely dead, as shown by European governments welcoming millions of displaced Ukrainians. However, Britain's recent policies suggest that the once universally upheld obligation to take in refugees is now being treated as optional. This shift, already starting to have consequences, is likely to accelerate in the upcoming months as more refugees are expected to arrive during the summer, potentially leading to further backlash from countries like Britain. The world's support for refugees and asylum-seekers has historically been more conditional and self-serving than initially portrayed. After World War II, Western leaders promised to resettle Europe's refugees in safe locations, but also forcibly returned 2.3 million Soviet citizens to the Soviet Union, where many were executed or sent to labor camps. Despite this, during the Cold War, Western governments emphasized their commitment to refugee rights in order to portray their bloc as superior to communist regimes. However, Western compliance with these ideals was inconsistent, often favoring refugees from communist countries or those who provided political benefits. However, the significant change occurred with the end of the Cold War in 1991, as Western countries no longer had the same political motivation. The number of global refugees dramatically increased in the early 1990s to 18 million, almost nine times more than when refugee rules were first established in a 1951 convention. The US policy of redirecting Haitian refugees started in 1991, exploiting a loophole to avoid hearing their claims by ensuring they did not reach US shores. This tactic allowed the United States to technically comply with its laws, which aligned with international obligations. A few years later, there was another increase in the number of refugees globally, reaching 20 million in 2017. This number has slightly increased since then, but it is still lower, in terms of the global population, compared to the peak in 1992. The current refugee crisis is likely not as severe as the one after World War II, where tens of millions were displaced across Europe and Asia. However, in the 2010s, as refugee numbers rose mainly from poorer countries, the response from world powers was different. The United States implemented similar policies towards Central American and Haitian refugees, making deals with governments, especially in Mexico, to prevent refugees and migrants from reaching the border. Europe and Australia also followed similar strategies. The outcome is a series of detention centers arranged in concentric circles, some known for their harsh treatment, located just outside the wealthiest countries in the world. Most of these centers are strategically placed along the paths of refugees or near the borders they were trying to reach, giving governments a facade of compliance. Britain's recent proposal to transport individuals to distant continents takes this concept further, highlighting the true workings of the system. Some suggest that establishing new international agreements or abolishing old ones could better distribute global responsibility, especially as the distinction between economic migrants and political refugees becomes blurred due to an increase in climate refugees. However, world leaders have shown little interest in these suggestions. The issue is that governments are hesitant to accept refugees, and simply replacing one agreement with another would not solve the problem. Europe's apparent double standard, where they welcome Ukrainians but make it difficult for migrants from the Middle East to enter, reveals the unwritten rules of the new refugee system. Governments are increasingly applying refugee rights selectively based on which groups are more likely to gain domestic political approval. This selective application of refugee rights can be seen in various government actions, such as Britain expelling asylum-seekers while expressing regret for not admitting more Ukrainians. Despite criticism of President Donald Trump for his comments about welcoming Norwegians and blocking undesirable populations, this sentiment is becoming more common. The Biden administration recently granted protected status to 40,000 Cameroonian citizens in the United States, allowing them to stay in the country due to the civil war in Cameroon. This decision follows a similar move last month to protect 30,000 Ukrainians. However, there is a debate within the administration about whether to keep a Trump-era rule that allows the country to reject most refugees on public health grounds. Despite plans to lift the rule on May 23, there are disagreements within the administration about its future. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a shift in attitudes towards border policies, with some previously extreme measures now being considered more acceptable. Due to this, restrictions that were once considered extreme now seem more acceptable, making it easier for governments to enforce them. Governments have realized that as long as they are not held accountable for violating international norms, only their own citizens can stop them. In many cases, it is the citizens themselves who are calling for these policies. Over the past decade, right-wing populist parties have gained support by opposing immigration and criticizing refugee policies as a threat to national identities. While some mainstream parties have resisted this trend — such as Germany accepting 1 million refugees despite a rise in far-right sentiment — others have decided that limiting nonwhite immigration is necessary to protect their parties and possibly their democracies. The global refugee compact was not meant to be determined by domestic politics, but that seems to be the case for families seeking refuge. The British public's reaction to Boris Johnson's proposal may reveal a lot about how far they are willing to go in defying the compact. David Normington, a former civil servant, criticized the plan as inhumane, morally wrong, potentially illegal, and possibly unfeasible. Ultimately, the success of the plan may hinge on the tolerance of the British public rather than laws or ethics. Text = Copyright 2022 The New York Times Company.