If individuals demonstrate that they are in danger and meet the requirements set by the host country, then that country must accept them. This principle has not been fully upheld since its inception after World War II, when it was considered a moral and practical necessity to rebuild societies for the greater good. However, in recent years, the Western powers that initially supported this agreement have been gradually weakening it, undermining their own and the world's responsibilities towards a duty they once deemed essential for global stability. This undermining of the agreement reached a new peak last week when the British government unveiled a plan to send thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda instead of processing their claims, effectively making them another country's problem. Britain did not come up with the idea of housing refugees and asylum-seekers in remote facilities. European governments have been paying leaders in countries such as Sudan and Libya to detain migrants for them for many years. Australia also does this by sending migrants to various island nations. The United States began this practice in 1991 by sending Haitians to Guantánamo Bay. The rise of right-wing politics, the backlash against migration in Europe in 2015, and the coronavirus pandemic have all led to an increase in these practices, along with others like building walls and using armed patrols to make the journey more dangerous. The global refugee system is not completely dead, as seen by European governments accepting millions of displaced Ukrainians. However, Britain's actions suggest that the once universal and legally binding obligation is now seen as optional. This shift, already evident in some ways, is likely to escalate in the coming months as refugee arrivals are expected to increase in the summer, potentially leading to more backlash against refugees. The commitment of the world to refugees and asylum-seekers has always been more conditional and self-interested than originally believed. After World War II, Western leaders promised to resettle Europe's refugees in safe locations, but they also forcibly returned 2.3 million Soviet citizens to the Soviet Union, where many were executed or sent to the gulag. Despite this, during the Cold War, Western governments began to emphasize their respect for refugee rights in order to contrast themselves with communist governments that restricted citizens from leaving. However, Western compliance with refugee rights remained inconsistent, often favoring refugees from communist countries or those who could provide some political advantage. The Cold War ended in 1991, causing Western countries to lose their political motivation to address global refugee populations. As a result, the number of refugees worldwide increased significantly, reaching 18 million in the early 1990s, almost nine times higher than when refugee rules were established in 1951. The US began diverting Haitian refugees in 1991 to avoid having to hear their claims, exploiting a legal loophole to maintain compliance with both domestic and international laws. Years later, there was another increase in the number of refugees globally, reaching 20 million in 2017. While this number has slightly increased since then, it is still lower as a percentage of the global population compared to the peak in 1992. The current refugee crisis is likely smaller than the one that occurred after World War II, which displaced tens of millions across Europe and Asia. However, in the 2010s, as refugee numbers grew mainly from poorer countries, the response was different. The United States, for example, implemented similar policies for Central Americans as it did for Haitians, working with governments, particularly in Mexico, to prevent refugees and migrants from reaching the border. Europe and Australia also adopted similar strategies. Resulting in a pattern of detention centers in concentric circles, some known for their harsh treatment, located just outside the borders of the wealthiest nations. These centers are strategically placed along the paths of refugees or near the borders they were trying to reach, providing governments with a facade of compliance. The UK's recent proposal to transport individuals to a distant continent further emphasizes the reality of this system. Some believe that establishing new international agreements or eliminating old ones could more effectively 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 such proposals. The issue lies in governments not wanting refugees and being unwilling to accept them, so simply replacing one ignored agreement with another will not solve the problem. Europe's apparent double standard in welcoming Ukrainians while making it difficult for migrants from the Middle East to enter has highlighted the new refugee system's unwritten norms. Governments now selectively apply refugee rights based on which demographic groups are more likely to receive domestic political approval. This practice, exemplified by Britain expelling asylum-seekers while apologizing for not accepting more Ukrainians, reflects a common trend seen even in statements made by President Donald Trump. Last week, the Biden administration granted protected status to 40,000 Cameroonian citizens in the United States, allowing them to stay in the country instead of returning to Cameroon due to the civil war. In addition, 30,000 Ukrainians were also granted protected status recently. However, there has been disagreement within the administration about whether to maintain a Trump-era rule that allows the U.S. to reject most refugees at the border for public health reasons. Despite the rule being set to be lifted on May 23, some in the administration have fought to keep it. The pandemic has caused a shift in what was once considered extreme, such as near-total border closures. Due to this, restrictions that were once considered shocking now seem more acceptable, making it easier for governments to implement them. Governments have also realized that as long as they are not held accountable by other countries for violating international norms, only their own citizens can stop them. Often, these policies are demanded by the citizens themselves. Over the past decade, right-wing populist parties have gained support by pushing back against immigration and portraying refugee regulations as a way to weaken traditional national identities. While some established parties resisted this trend — such as Germany accepting 1 million refugees despite the rise of far-right movements — others believed that limiting nonwhite immigration was necessary to protect their parties and possibly their democracies. The original intentions of the global refugee compact have been overshadowed by domestic politics, leading to refugees being forced to pay the price for fleeing wars or famines. The British public's response to Prime Minister Boris Johnson's proposal, which defies the compact, may shed light on whether the plan is feasible, regardless of its legality or morality. David Normington, a former top civil servant, criticized the proposal as inhumane, morally reprehensible, and possibly unlawful. Ultimately, the success of the plan may hinge on the tolerance of the British public. Text = © 2022 The New York Times Company retains all rights.