If individuals can demonstrate that they are in real danger and meet the requirements of the host country, that country must accept them. This principle, which originated after World War II as a moral and practical necessity to rebuild societies for the greater good, has not been fully upheld. The Western powers that initially promoted this idea have been gradually weakening it in recent years, undermining their own and the world's responsibilities towards ensuring global stability. This trend reached a new low last week when the UK government announced a plan to send thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda without hearing their claims, shifting the burden to another country. Britain did not invent the practice of detaining refugees and asylum-seekers in remote facilities. European governments have been outsourcing this task to foreign despots and warlords in countries such as Sudan and Libya. Australia also delegates this responsibility to island nations, which are sometimes referred to as its gulag archipelago. The United States initiated this approach in 1991 by redirecting boats carrying Haitians to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The rise of right-wing populist movements, the backlash in Europe against a surge in migration in 2015, and the coronavirus pandemic have all contributed to the acceleration of this practice, along with other measures such as walls, armed patrols, and policies designed to increase the dangers of the journey for migrants. The global refugee system is not completely dead, as European governments are accepting millions of displaced Ukrainians. However, Britain's recent policies suggest that the system, once seen as a universal obligation, is now viewed as voluntary. This change is evident in the double standard applied to different groups of migrants. The shift in attitude towards refugees is expected to have consequences in the coming months, particularly as refugee arrivals are expected to increase in the summer. The global commitment to refugees and asylum-seekers has always been more conditional and self-interested than initially portrayed. In the aftermath of World War II, Western leaders promised to resettle Europe's refugees in safe locations, but also forcibly repatriated 2.3 million Soviet citizens to the Soviet Union, where many faced execution or imprisonment. Despite this, during the Cold War, Western governments began to emphasize their respect for refugee rights as a way to showcase their superiority over communist governments that restricted citizens from fleeing. However, Western compliance with refugee rights remained inconsistent, often favoring refugees from communist countries or those who offered potential political advantages. The real change occurred at the end of the Cold War in 1991, when Western countries no longer had a political reason to accept refugees. As a result, global refugee populations increased significantly in the early 1990s, reaching 18 million according to the United Nations. The US started diverting Haitian refugees in 1991 as a way to avoid having to hear their claims, taking advantage of a loophole that allowed them to technically comply with US law without having to fulfill international obligations. Years later, there was another increase in the number of refugees globally, reaching 20 million in 2017. While the figure has slightly increased since then, it still remains smaller compared to the peak in 1992 as a percentage of the global population. The current refugee crisis is believed to be smaller than the one after World War II, which displaced tens of millions of people across Europe and Asia and had a significant impact on societies, prompting action from world powers. However, in the 2010s, as refugee numbers rose mainly from poorer countries, the response was different. The United States implemented similar policies for Central American and Haitian refugees by negotiating agreements with governments, particularly in Mexico, to prevent refugees and other migrants from reaching the border. Europe and Australia also followed similar strategies. The outcome is the establishment of detention centers in concentric rings just beyond the borders of wealthy countries, some known for their harsh treatment of detainees. These centers are strategically located along the paths of refugees or near the borders they were trying to reach, giving governments a facade of compliance. Britain's new proposal, which involves transporting people to a distant continent, takes this concept even further, highlighting the flaws in the current system. Some suggest that creating new international agreements or abolishing old ones could help distribute global responsibility more effectively, 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 ideas. If governments are unwilling to accept refugees, simply replacing one ignored agreement with another will not make much of a difference. The double standard in Europe, where Ukrainians are welcomed but migrants from the Middle East are kept out, highlights the unwritten norms of the new refugee system. Governments now apply refugee rights selectively, based on which groups are expected to receive domestic political approval. This practice, seen in Britain's expulsion of asylum-seekers while apologizing for not accepting more Ukrainians, reflects a growing trend where certain populations are favored over others. Despite criticism of President Donald Trump's comments about accepting Norwegians and rejecting undesirable populations, this sentiment is becoming more common. The Biden administration recently provided protected status to 40,000 Cameroonian citizens in the US, allowing them to stay due to the civil war in Cameroon. Additionally, 30,000 Ukrainians were granted protected status. There is a debate within the administration about maintaining a Trump-era rule that allows the US to reject most refugees on public health grounds. Despite the rule being set to be lifted on May 23, some in the administration pushed to keep it, citing the pandemic as a reason for stricter border controls. Schwartz mentioned that the pandemic has led to once extreme measures, like near-total border closures, becoming more acceptable. The easing of restrictions that were once considered shocking has made governments more comfortable in implementing them. Governments have realized that as long as they don't hold each other accountable for breaking international norms, only their citizens can stop them. Often, it is the citizens themselves who demand these policies. Right-wing populist parties gained support in the last decade by opposing immigration and framing refugee regulations as a scheme to weaken national identities. While some mainstream parties resisted this trend - such as Germany accepting 1 million refugees despite the rise of far-right groups - others believed restricting nonwhite immigration was necessary to protect their parties, and possibly their democratic systems. The original intentions of the global refugee compact did not align with the current situation where domestic politics determine the fate of families fleeing disasters. The British public's response to Prime Minister Boris Johnson's proposal, which defies the compact, may shed light on the situation. David Normington, a former top civil servant, criticized the proposal as inhumane, morally wrong, potentially illegal, and impractical. Ultimately, the success of the plan may hinge on the British public's tolerance rather than legal or moral considerations. Copyright 2022 The New York Times Company.