Affluent countries have a responsibility to take refugees, and many of them can and should accept more than they do. But as the number of people seeking asylum has grown, it has become difficult for tribunals and courts to determine who is a refugee, as defined by the Convention, and who is a well-coached migrant seeking a better life in a more affluent country.
The Convention has also given rise to the new, often unscrupulous, and sometimes lethal industry of people smuggling. If those who claim asylum in a nearby country were sent to a refugee camp, safe from persecution, and supported financially by aid from affluent countries, people smuggling – and deaths in transit – would be eliminated. Moreover, the incentive for economic migrants to seek asylum would be reduced, and affluent countries could fulfill their responsibility to accept more refugees from the camps, while maintaining control of their borders.
That may not be the best solution, but it may be the most workable. And it looks a lot better than the chaos and tragedy that many refugees are facing now.
Hans utgångspunkt är om vi vill vara osjälviska och hjälpa våra medmänniskor - vilket vi bör - så bör vi förstås hjälpa på det mest effektiva sättet möjligt. Här utvecklar han sina resonemang om Effektiv altruism i ett TED-föredrag.
Diskussionen om flyktingpolitik är en diskussion värd att ha. Men utgångspunkten måste alltid vara medmänsklighet, aldrig främlingsfientlighet. Annars hamnar man fel.