If individuals demonstrate that they are in legitimate danger and meet the requirements set by the host country, then that country must accept them. This principle was established after World War II with the intention of rebuilding societies for the greater good. However, Western powers have been gradually undermining this principle in recent years, weakening their own and the world's obligations to provide assistance. Last week, the British government made a controversial decision to send foreign citizens who had applied for asylum to Rwanda instead of processing their claims, disregarding their well-being. Britain did not create the idea of confining refugees and asylum-seekers in distant facilities. European governments have been paying foreign leaders in countries such as Sudan and Libya to detain migrants for them for a long time. Australia also sends migrants to island nations, which is sometimes called its gulag archipelago. The United States began this practice in 1991 by redirecting Haitian boats to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The increase in right-wing populist movements, the backlash in Europe against a surge of migrants in 2015, and the coronavirus pandemic have sped up this practice and others like it: walls, armed patrols, and policies that purposely make the journey more dangerous. The global refugee system is not completely dead, as European governments are still welcoming millions of Ukrainians displaced by Russia's invasion. However, Britain's recent actions suggest that this system, once seen as a universal and legally binding obligation, is now being treated as more voluntary. According to Stephanie Schwartz, a scholar of migration politics at the University of Pennsylvania, the boldness of offering housing to Ukrainians while simultaneously planning to send other migrants far away indicates a double standard that implies governments can choose when to accept refugees. This shift in attitude is already having consequences and is expected to accelerate in the coming months, particularly during a predicted increase in refugee arrivals in the summer. This shift may also lead to more backlash similar to what has been seen in Britain. The global commitment to refugees and asylum-seekers has always been more conditional and self-interested than 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, leading to the execution or imprisonment of many. Despite this, during the Cold War, Western governments emphasized their respect for refugee rights as a way to showcase their superiority over communist governments. However, Western compliance with refugee rights remained inconsistent, often favoring refugees from communist countries or those who offered political advantages. The real change occurred when the Cold War ended in 1991, leading Western countries to lose their political motivation. The global refugee population surged in the early 1990s to 18 million, almost nine times the number when refugee rules were established in a 1951 convention. The US started diverting Haitian refugees in 1991 as a way to avoid hearing their claims, exploiting a loophole to technically comply with US law while skirting international obligations, despite the lack of deception. In 2017, there was another increase in refugees worldwide, reaching 20 million. Although this number has slightly increased since then, it is still smaller compared to the peak in 1992. The current refugee crisis is believed to be smaller than the one after World War II, which displaced millions across Europe and Asia and led to significant destruction. In the 2010s, as refugee numbers grew mostly from poorer countries, the response was different. The United States implemented similar policies for Central American and Haitian refugees, making deals with governments, especially in Mexico, to prevent refugees and other migrants from entering the country. Europe and Australia also adopted similar strategies. The outcome is the establishment of detention centers in a ring-like formation, with some known for their harsh treatment, situated just outside the wealthiest countries in the world. These centers are strategically placed along the paths of refugees or near the borders they were trying to reach, allowing governments to appear compliant. The recent proposal by Britain to transport people to a distant continent takes this concept even further, highlighting the true functioning of the new system. Some suggest that creating new international agreements or abolishing existing ones could more effectively distribute global responsibility, especially with the increasing number of climate refugees blurring the lines between economic migrants and political refugees. Despite this, world leaders have shown little interest in such ideas. The issue is that governments are reluctant to accept refugees, and simply replacing one agreement with another would not solve this problem. Europe's apparent hypocrisy in welcoming Ukrainians but not migrants from the Middle East highlights the new refugee system's unwritten norms. Governments now tend to selectively apply refugee rights based on which groups are more likely to receive political approval. This practice, seen in Britain's expulsion of asylum-seekers while apologizing for not admitting more Ukrainians, is becoming more common, despite criticism of former President Donald Trump's similar sentiments. The Biden administration recently provided protected status to 40,000 Cameroonian citizens in the US, allowing them to stay in the country during Cameroon's civil war. This decision follows a similar move last month where 30,000 Ukrainians were also granted protected status. However, there is disagreement within the administration regarding whether to keep a Trump-era rule that allows the US to reject most refugees for public health reasons. Despite plans to lift the rule on May 23, some in the administration are pushing to keep it. The pandemic has led to extreme measures like near-total border closures becoming more acceptable. As a consequence, restrictions that may have previously appeared extreme now seem more ordinary, making it easier for governments to implement them. Governments have also realized that if they do not hold each other accountable for violating international norms, there is nobody except their own citizens to prevent them. Furthermore, it is often their own citizens who advocate for these policies. Over the past decade, right-wing populist parties have gained momentum by rallying against immigration and portraying refugee regulations as an attempt to weaken traditional national identities. While some mainstream parties resisted this trend — for instance, Germany accepted 1 million refugees despite the rise of the far right in the country — others believed that limiting nonwhite immigration was essential to protect their parties, and possibly their democratic systems. The original intent of the global refugee compact was for families displaced by disaster to find a new life abroad, not to be determined by domestic politics. The British public's response to Boris Johnson's proposal may reveal whether they will accept a plan that is considered inhumane, morally reprehensible, and possibly unlawful. Ultimately, the success of the plan may depend more on what the British public is willing to tolerate rather than on laws or morality. Copyright 2022 by The New York Times Company.