Ron Lach via Pexels
Every country in the world, from the largest to the smallest, has an immigration policy. While much attention has been given to the United States, particularly as Trump continues to implement restrictive immigration measures in his second administration through executive orders and policy changes, the U.S. is far from the only country with tight borders. Others around the world are outsourcing their asylum systems, thus limiting asylum opportunities and creating legal frameworks that prioritize deterrence over protection. These systems, while justified by claims of national security and resource management, raise serious ethical and legal concerns about the commodification of human displacement and the erosion of international protections for refugees.
Australia has long faced criticism for its “Operation Sovereign Borders,” a military-led border security operation established in 2013 to intercept unauthorized maritime arrivals.[1] Since 2001, Australia has transferred asylum seekers arriving by boat to offshore processing centers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, and in exchange, Nauru has received over AU$5 billion (US $3.3 billion), a massive sum for its small economy.[2] Despite accusations of human rights abuses,[3] these facilities remain central to Australia’s immigration strategy to control “who comes to this country,” deterring unauthorized arrivals and setting a precedent for other nations.[4]
The United States and European Union member countries have similarly financed border control and asylum systems in outside nations.[5] The United States in recent years implemented the Migrant Protection Protocol (“MPP”), otherwise referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” program.[6] Under MPP, individuals seeking asylum at the southern border—whether at designated ports of entry or after crossing between them—were issued notices to appear in immigration court and subsequently returned to Mexico, where they were told to remain until their court hearing.[7] Although Biden enforced MPP at a smaller scale, Trump is revamping MPP as he envisioned it in his first term.[8]
Denmark has adopted an increasingly rigid stance on immigration over the past decade. Its exemption from certain EU measures due to opting out of the Maastricht Treaty has allowed it to pass controversial laws,[9] including a 2021 measure permitting the transfer of asylum seekers to processing centers in partner countries like Rwanda.[10] This plan drew sharp criticism from the European Commission, and was suspended in 2023.[11] Nevertheless, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has publicly declared Denmark’s goal of having zero asylum seekers,[12] and has “considered detaining asylum seekers on a remote island,” signaling the country’s hardline approach to immigration.[13]
These arrangements have one major thing in common; they prevent mass arrivals while maintaining control over migration flows. The motivations for employing such restrictive policies vary, ranging from concerns of overpopulation putting a strain on public services and finances, perceived public opinion on immigrants, and the political motives of government groups or officials.[14] In Denmark, for instance, anti-immigrant politicians often cite social cohesion, integration challenges, and fears about “anti-democratic values” allegedly brought by immigrants from Muslim-majority countries.[15] In Australia, border security has become the primary justification, rooted in a prevailing belief that individuals arriving by boat are either “bogus” refugees seeking “easy” entry for economic advantage or pose a potential security threat.[16]
Proponents of strict border controls argue that processing asylum claims offshore “saves lives” and enables a fair and comprehensive review while deterring unauthorized entry and easing the burden on domestic resources.[17] Additionally, much like other extractive industries, hosting and processing refugees is framed as an economic opportunity for countries in the Global South.[18] Alongside financial incentives, “host countries are promised a range of benefits such as funding for roads, schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure.”[19]
Critics underscore the moral obligation of developed nations to provide refuge for displaced individuals who often face unimaginable hardship and have no viable alternatives for safe resettlement.[20] Additionally, serious ethical and legal concerns are raised regarding offshore asylum policies. Detractors argue that such practices may undermine the fundamental right to seek asylum, a principle enshrined in international law, and expose vulnerable individuals to unsafe and precarious conditions, exacerbating their already traumatic experiences.[21] The potential erosion of humanitarian values and legal commitments remains a key point of contention for those advocating for more compassionate and just immigration frameworks.[22]
The 1951 Refugee Convention outlines a cooperative framework for managing humanitarian migration, acknowledging that asylum can burden certain countries and emphasizing the need for international cooperation.[23] However, many practices discussed herein violate key provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The principle of non-refoulement (Article 33)[24] is compromised when asylum seekers are sent to places where their safety cannot be guaranteed, such as Nauru, Rwanda, or Mexico (when sent back by the U.S. through the MPP). As Western governments increasingly finance refugee camps near conflict zones, they simultaneously push refugees to stay closer to their country of origin, undermine the right to seek asylum, and place vulnerable individuals in dangerous situations, thus violating the spirit of international protections. Furthermore, detention in remote facilities with inadequate conditions contravenes the obligation to treat asylum seekers with dignity (Article 31).[25] The lack of meaningful legal access also undermines their right to a fair process (Articles 16 and 31). These practices erode the fundamental principles of refugee protection and diminish global cooperation on asylum.
The European Union has criticized Denmark’s hardline policies and taken legal action against member states not upholding international refugee conventions, highlighting the tension between national sovereignty and European legal obligations.[26] Similarly, the U.S. MPP has faced widespread criticism, including a lawsuit claiming a violation of the principle of non-refoulement.[27]
While international human rights law aims to protect individuals within a state’s jurisdiction, these protections are only effective when accountability mechanisms are in place. The outsourcing of asylum processing raises ethical concerns, as it often mirrors colonial practices, with Global South countries hosting refugees in exchange for financial incentives and infrastructure development. Critics argue this turns human displacement into a commodity, akin to an extractive industry.[28] Ultimately, international legal protections can only be effective if robust accountability structures exist to ensure the rights of vulnerable populations are upheld.
Although the restrictive immigration policies of the recent Trump administration have drawn considerable attention, it is important to acknowledge that the U.S. is not unique in outsourcing border control and asylum processing. Nevertheless, the proliferation of restrictive immigration practices signals a troubling trend that prioritizes deterrence over protection and commodifies the plight of vulnerable individuals. Addressing this troubling trend requires renewed compassion, cooperation, and accountability to create more humane and inclusive policies that uphold human rights and foster social and economic cohesion.
Marcelina Kropiwnicka is a Staff Editor at CICLR.
[1] Operation Sovereign Borders, Austl. Gov’t, https://osb.homeaffairs.gov.au/zero-chance [https://perma.cc/6NPR-L5A2] (last visited Jan. 30, 2025).
[2] Julia Morris, As Nauru Shows, Asylum Outsourcing Has Unexpected Impacts on Host Communities, Migration Pol’y Inst. (Aug. 29, 2023), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/nauru-outsource-asylum [https://perma.cc/LC2Q-4Z36].
[3] Australia Violated Rights of Asylum Seekers Held in Nauru, UN Watchdog Says, Aljazeera, (Jan. 10, 2025), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/10/australia-violated-rights-of-asylum-seekers-held-in-nauru-un-watchdog-says[https://perma.cc/RUM2-R662].
[4] Morris, supra note 2.
[5] Id.
[6]The “Migrant Protection Protocols”: an Explanation of the
Remain in Mexico Program, Am. Immigr. Council (Feb. 2024), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/migrant_protection_protocols_2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/Z4RS-NPUG].
[7] Id.
[8] Ximena Bustillo & Jasmine Garsd, Trump Reinforces Use of His 'Remain in Mexico' Policy, NPR (Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/01/20/g-s1-43802/trump-immigration-border-remain-in-mexico-policy [https://perma.cc/AUB3-B9W8].
[9] Governance of Migrant Integration in Denmark, Eur. Union, https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/country-governance/governance-migrant-integration-denmark_en#:~:text=Denmark%20is%20the%20only%20EU,and%20the%20adoption%20of%20the [https://perma.cc/Y6LS-YTBE] (last updated June 2024).
[10] Out of Sight, Out of Mind: EU Planning to Offshore Asylum Applications?, Statewatch (July 9, 2024), https://www.statewatch.org/news/2024/july/out-of-sight-out-of-mind-eu-planning-to-offshore-asylum-applications/ [https://perma.cc/M2JJ-3PEA].
[11] Michala C. Bendixen, Why Europe Should Avoid Modelling its Migration Policy on Denmark, Rosa Luxemburg (Nov. 25, 2024), https://rosalux.eu/en/2024/english-why-europe-should-avoid-modelling-its-migration-policy-on-denmark/ [https://perma.cc/SP38-LP7Q].
[12] Polina Bachlakova, Living in Fear in Copenhagen: How Denmark is Deliberately Infringing on the Rights of People Seeking Asylum, Unbias the News, https://unbiasthenews.org/living-in-fear-in-copenhagen-how-denmark-is-deliberately-infringing-on-the-rights-of-people-seeking-asylum/ [https://perma.cc/BA9Q-R7NQ] (last visited Jan. 30, 2025).
[13] Charlie Duxbury, Denmark’s tough stance on migrants plays well at home. In Brussels, it could be a different story., Politico (April 12, 2024), https://www.politico.eu/article/denmark-migration-eu-parliament-election-mette-frederiksen/ [https://perma.cc/4G73-UBP7].
[14] Why Are Countries Curbing Immigration?, Immigr. Advice Serv., https://iasservices.org.uk/why-are-countries-curbing-immigration/[https://perma.cc/2EB7-FV2N] (last visited Jan. 30, 2025).
[15] Id.
[16] Claire Loughnan, Australia’s Harsh Immigration Policy, The Diplomat (Sept. 1, 2019), https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/australias-harsh-immigration-policy/ [https://perma.cc/MM38-H8HG].
[17] Extraterritorial Processing of Asylum Claims, Eur. Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/757609/EPRS_BRI(2024)757609_EN.pdf [https://perma.cc/TH6E-3ALE] (last visited Jan. 30, 2025).
[18] Morris, supra note 2.
[20] Nat’l Immigr. Just. Ctr. & FWD.us, Pushing Back Protection: How Offshoring and Externalization Imperil the Right to Asylum, https://immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/content-type/research-item/documents/2021-08/Offshoring-Asylum-Report_final.pdf[https://perma.cc/A45G-3AEX] (last visited Jan. 30, 2025).
[21] Id.
[22] Id.; Morris, supra note 2.
[23] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] European Parliament, supra note 17.
[27] Gregory Szuman, A Look At Australia’s Asylum Policy Through the Lens of the United States’ MPP, 51 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 215, 217-18 (2020).
[28] Morris, supra note 2.
Comments