Arrested refugees-immigrants in Fylakio detention center, Evros, Greece

During the course of the last decade, the movement towards less than friendly positions against immigrants has been patent. The far-right has gained traction and popularity during the last ten-fifteen years largely due to this positioning, especially after the 2015 refugee crisis. From Trump’s wall to Meloni’s refusal to allow boats containing asylum seekers dock in the coasts of Italy and the UK’s Rwanda deportation programme. Virtually all the countries from the Global North where the far-right is not already in power have seen a raise in their polling and influence in national politics. In many cases, they are ranking third (Spain and Germany), second (Sweden) or even first (Norway and France) the preferences of their electorate for the next election. Even in the Global South, countries that experience more immigration than emigration like Argentina and Chile, have recently elected far-right presidents, Javier Milei and José Antonio Kast respectively. Kast and Milei express similar concerns and proposals regarding immigrants and asylum seekers as their Global North counterparts. Kast’s platform during the election was to not lesser extent centered around the construction of walls and ditches in the northern border with Peru and Bolivia and the criminalization of irregular entry through the Atacama Desert.

However, this movement is not exclusive of the far-right – Mette Frederiksen, Prime Minister of Denmark for the Social Democrat party (Socialdemokratiet) since 2019, named by Politico as the second most influential person in Europe in 2026, has characterized her government by a particularly hard approach towards migration. According to Politico’s piece, it is precisely this aspect that has been one of her larger influences in the politics of Europe: prioritizing the detention and deportation of asylum seekers rather than their protection and integration to society. Resistance to the protection of refugees, once unthinkable, is today the rule of international politics in the Global North.

From a philosophical perspective, there are several interconnected aspects of this movement to a less friendly world towards migration that demand moral examination. The first is obvious, the very act of strengthening borders has consequences not only for the lives of migrants but also for the lives of locals. The second feature I turn my attention to, is the double standards of Global North states when it comes to the acceptance of migrants depending on where they come from, both historically and in the present. The third point I examine is the argument given by those who support harsher borders and less migration: that states don´t have the necessary resources to sustain the local population, let alone the additional burden caused by migrants. Finally, I look into the idea of geographical luck, which refers to the fact that people don’t choose the country they are born into, and privileges (or lack of them) that this implies due to the unequal distribution not only of wealth, but of rights in the contemporary world. In this way, migration permits compensation for those who are born into less lucky situations.

The tightening of border controls and the shifting border

According to legal scholar Ayelet Shachar, borders are not only becoming harsher but moving. Borders are now not only physical like mountains, rivers or even human-made walls (which are also growing in number), or delimited to the lines we see on maps, but a legal construct. More demanding visa requirements, decreasing the amount of quota refugees accepted (for example, in 2026, Norway vowed to accept the underwhelming number of 100 quota of refugees into the country), and less staff processing visas to increase the waiting times are part of the playbook of the shifting border.

Borders are being moved as far away from the territorial borders as possible, to minimize the number of persons who actually manage to come into a country, such as by entering agreements with other countries that intervene boats at sea and prevent them from reaching the shore. That has been the EU’s policy with its border enforcing agency, FRONTEX. The shifting border is also implemented directly at the source, through passport controls and visa screenings at airports, seaports and transit points. Even crossing a physical border may not be enough to be considered to actually have entered a country: Australia’s law only considers that a person has reached Australia if they have done so according to the Australian regulations, otherwise they can be removed and shipped off to so-called off-shore processing centers that have been at the center of controversies due to the abusive and inhuman treatment that asylum seekers have suffered there.

Nevertheless, this idea has inspired several European countries who have tried to reach similar agreements with so-called “safe third countries”. Safe third countries are countries presumed to have safe and peaceful conditions for those who live in them which gives grounds for EU countries to expedite rejection of asylum seekers for those who come from those countries or to those who merely transit through them. This allows the EU to deport asylum seekers to these safe third countries while their asylum claims are reviewed. Having a list of countries that permits expedite rejection of asylum claims is, at the very least, morally concerning.

Some of the countries in this list include Colombia, Tunisia and Egypt. Colombia has experienced in 2025 the worst humanitarian tolls since the peace accord with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), with a reemerged presence of violence and armed groups. Tunisia is experiencing serious concerns regarding authoritarianism, where reporters and opposition figures have been sentenced to prison on vague terrorism and conspiracy charges, in addition to violating refugees’ and asylum seekers’ rights. In Egypt, the authoritarian regime has banned protests and gatherings, punished dissenting expressions and the opposition. In addition, the economic crisis has reduced access to food, health and education. These are situations that people could reasonably want to escape and yet their claims are immediately rejected due to the safe third country policy.

This idea sparked special controversy when the UK declared Rwanda to be one such country and announced that asylum seekers would be sent there while their cases were reviewed. The UK’s Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the government at the time and declared that Rwanda wasn’t a safe third country due to its poor human rights record. The measure was later reverted, and no asylum seekers were actually deported to Rwanda.

Double Standards

Many comparisons have been drawn between the treatment received by Ukrainian refugees as opposed to refugees who are originals of the Global South (See for example Tony Mickelsson’s article Ukrainian Refugees’ Differentiated Treatment: A Critical and Systematic Review, or this blog entry by Jamie McDiarmid in the Scottish Human Rights Commission). Ukrainian refugees have a bigger chance at being seen as who they are, people fleeing the horrors of war, than refugees coming from anywhere else. Refugees from the Global South escaping similar conditions are portrayed by those who promote anti-immigration sentiments as welfare-state free riders at best, and as potential or even actual criminals and terrorists at worst. Exceptional measures were adopted by many European countries to receive large numbers of Ukrainian refugees, while, at the same time, the borders were hardened through the externalization practices mentioned previously to reduce the number of people from the Global South offered asylum.

The Global North has a very different response to refugees and migrants depending on where they come from. These countries take refuge as a necessary, essential and mandatory humanitarian response to the threats faced by refugees particularly when the Global North has a need for it. This is exemplified by the differentiated response to Ukrainian refugees as opposed to Syrian refugees during the 2015 crisis, but also by the original refugee convention definition. The Refugee Convention was originally adopted in 1951 to address the displacement that occurred in Europe after World War II, which permitted European refugees to remain in the countries they arrived to after fleeing the war due to persecution. Only in 1967 a protocol was implemented to include displacement occurring outside of Europe and after World War II.

When refugees come from elsewhere, the concerns shift from humanitarian concerns to the needs of their comfortable citizens. This is where the far-right has succeeded: the discourse has shifted from human rights and what is owed to people in need to what these people in need take from a society and the potential social, political and economic disruption that they bring.

The limited resources argument

Many think today that the countries in the Global North simply don’t have enough resources for both the local population and incoming refugees, and therefore, refugees must be denied entry. The countries pursuing measures to reduce immigration justify them often by claiming that they want to reduce the burden imposed on their societies by refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in general. However, a key aspect of modern society is being left behind in the same movement, that is, human rights.

This concern about rich countries not having enough resources to effectively protect refugees is at the very least questionable. Following the economic crisis of 2008, traditional conservative and far-right parties have in many countries taken on the job of weakening the welfare state wherever it existed. Their policies have been to offer less funding to public services and reduce the fiscal burden on higher incomes. This means that many countries have seen a decrease in the taxes paid by the super-rich, who have also had an unprecedented increase in their fortunes in the last ten years, deepening inequality even in the most equal societies.

At the same time, social policies have been reduced: the rise of rent, food, electricity and gas prices while salaries are to some extent stuck are real. Because people are struggling more than they used to before the 2008 crisis, it is easy to understand the perception that states simply don’t have enough resources to provide for both the local population and incoming refugees, but the truth is another. Resources exist, but those who have the most are not taxed accordingly. Where they are taxed significantly, the super-rich have answered by moving their fiscal addresses to more favorable places where they are required to pay less (For example, in Norway the super-rich move to Switzerland to avoid the high taxation on their capital and income).

But we must be careful not to make the asylum debate about resources and criminality: it is a question of humanity. Are we supposed to simply turn our eyes away from the atrocities committed throughout the world and close the doors when those who suffer them want to live a better life, free from extreme violence and poverty?

The moral mandate of offering asylum to people escaping human-made or natural threats is an imposition on any society that claims to have any sort of authority in the matter of human rights. When the Global North differentiates on the grounds of country of origin, it loses authority over the liberal principles that it relies on for international legitimacy. By rejecting asylum claims on loose grounds and reducing the numbers of refugees that they accept into their societies, they also condemn thousands of asylum seekers to die at sea, experience further human right abuses and violations in alleged third safe countries and processing centers.

Geographical Luck

Those who are born in the Global North experience what is called “geographical luck”, which means that the fact that they live comfortable lives is not a matter of merit, but a matter of being born in the right place at the right time. Being born in a country with a robust welfare state, labor laws, livable wages and healthy democratic infrastructure makes it more likely that any person will be able to live a decent life. Having access to healthcare and education from an early age opens opportunities which are reserved for the rich and powerful in countries without this kind of welfare system. The lack of a welfare state is often paired with wages bordering the poverty threshold, minimizing the chances at significantly improving one’s life conditions.

Being born into the “right family”, meaning a rich family with some social and cultural capital, can make up for being born in the “wrong place”. However, most families are not rich, and migration becomes an attractive option for many who dream of better lives. Many of these people are categorized as “economic immigrants”.

If the situation for refugees has hardened during the past years, economic migrants, who are seen as voluntary migrants, have seen even more, harsher regulations. The conditions required to migrate into a country of the Global North are almost impossible to meet for many, since there are strong limitations surrounding so-called “skilled labor”. For example, in Norway, to access a skilled worker visa, one must already have received a job offer, normally full-time, the job has to be related to one’s demonstrated skills (either through upper secondary education or university, and in some cases, through more than 6 years of experience), and one has to make a certain amount of money.

These requirements make it hard for those who want to turn the tables on their geographical luck and often prevent them from improving their conditions. Many blame so-called “economic immigrants” for wanting to jump ship and not improve the conditions at home. It would of course be better that societies changed throughout the world, but systemic changes, especially (but not exclusively) in countries where authoritarian leaders rule, are complex and don’t occur overnight.

Closing remarks

In this rather gloomy context, some light comes through. Very recently, Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez for the Socialist party (PSOE) introduced a measure to regularize the migration status of irregular migrants in the country if they could prove to have been in the country for at least five months and if they don’t have a criminal record. This measure should be taken as an example to the rest of the Global North. If there is political will, it is possible to move away from the dehumanizing discourse against migrants and see them for who they really are: people who want to live better lives, away from violence and extreme suffering.

The truth is that migration is a way in which people can improve their lives. And who can be blamed for wanting that?

Closing borders, losing humanity