Advocates for reforming the asylum system argue that the current framework is overwhelmed and requires a pragmatic update to ensure the stability of European states. By moving away from the individual right to asylum as it is currently interpreted, governments could regain control over their borders and better manage the flow of people entering the continent. This perspective emphasizes that the state has a primary responsibility to its own citizens to maintain social cohesion and ensure that public services are not pushed to the breaking point.
Supporters of this approach point to the logistical failures of the current system, where thousands of individuals remain in legal limbo for years while their claims are processed. They argue that a system based on external processing or regional hubs would be more efficient and humane, as it would prevent dangerous irregular crossings across the Mediterranean. By vetting individuals before they reach European territory, nations could prioritize those most in need while deterring human smuggling networks that profit from the current chaos.
Furthermore, proponents argue that the political legitimacy of the European project depends on the ability of member states to secure their borders. When citizens feel that their government has lost control over immigration, it often leads to increased support for populist movements and social fragmentation. Therefore, restricting the individual right to asylum is seen not as an abandonment of humanitarian values, but as a necessary step to preserve the democratic order and ensure that migration remains orderly and sustainable.
Ultimately, this view holds that the law must adapt to adapt to the realities of the 21st century. By shifting the focus from individual, spontaneous arrivals to a more controlled, state-led process, Europe can continue to provide protection to refugees while simultaneously upholding the rule of law and maintaining public trust in government institutions.