On December 20 the Court of Appeal in London ruled that Police Guidance on non-crime hate incidents might have a chilling effect on free expression and that it violated Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: The Freedom of Expression.
A growing number of facial expressions, words, phrases, opinions, and even scientific facts have become blasphemous to a loud and aggressive woke religion, and led to numerous instances in which people have been accused of having committed a non-crime hate incidents (NCHI). NCHIs are recorded by police, meaning that they will show up in background checks on the person, even though they are not crimes.

Don’t mention …
In many cases the accusations may remind one of what was at the time a very funny scene in the Monty Python’s Life of Brian: The stoning of the old man called Matthias, who is accused of blasphemy for uttering the holy name of “Jehovah.”

“OFFICIAL: ...you have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,...
CROWD: Ooooh!
OFFICIAL: ...you are to be stoned to death.
CROWD: Ahh!
MATTHIAS: Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'
CROWD: Oooooh!
OFFICIAL: Blasphemy! He's said it again!”
… See the rest Life of Brian.

Hate speech with a shade of “1984”
Once we may have laughed at Monty Python’s magnificent, but unbelievable silliness. But the equally unbelievable, but real silliness of UK Police is no laughing matter
Harry Miller, a shareholder in a machinery company and former police officer had written a series of what he later termed gender-critical tweets
In a tweet he argues:

“I believe that trans women are men who have chosen to identify as women. I believe such persons have the right to present and perform in any way they choose, provided that such choices do not infringe upon the rights of women. I do not believe that presentation and performance equate to literally changing sex; I believe that conflating sex (a biological classification) with self-identified gender (a social construct) poses a risk to women’s sex-based rights; I believe such concerns warrant vigorous discussion which is why I actively engage in the debate.”

Harry Miller’s tweets came to the attention of Mrs B. who describes herself as a ‘post-operative transgender lady.’ Alarmed, Mrs. B reported the tweets to the police as a hate crime.
“I was so alarmed and appalled by his brazen transphobic comments that I felt it necessary to pass it (sic) on to Humberside Police as he is the chairman of a company based in that force’s area.”
The local Humberside Police decided to record it as a hate incident pursuant to HCOG.
That is to say they found that it fell under the Hate Crime Operational Guidance (HCOG) as published by the College of Policing (CoP).
A hate crime is defined as an incident where the offending party is “motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility” towards a person’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity.” To record or prosecute a hate crime there must be evidence of hate or hostility. The HCOG defines Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs) as “any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice.”
“Perceived to be” is central here.
It appears that it is sufficient that Mrs. B felt so alarmed by the tweets, none of which were directed at her, that she saw the tweets as NCHI’s.
The Police officer responsible later argued: “Having reviewed the nature of the tweets, the impact on the victim and the risk of matters escalating to criminal offences being committed, I took the decision to speak with Mr Miller.”
The police officer went to talk to Harry Miller at the machinery company. Not finding him at work he left a message asking Harry Miller to contact him.
Harry Miller later called the police officer. He wasn’t happy and asked if he had committed a crime. The police officer explained to him that although the tweets were not criminal, they were upsetting many members of the transgender community who were upset enough to report them to the police.
In the phone call Harry Miller and the police officer had this exchange:
Police officer:
“You have to understand, sometimes in the womb, a female brain gets confused and pushes out the wrong body parts, and that is what transgender is.”

Harry Miller: ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. Wrong body parts?
You have to know that is absolute bullshit. Is this really the official police line?’
 
Police officer: ‘Yes, I have been on a course.’

“A chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression”
Harry Miller describes how he “Felt a deep sense of both personal humiliation, shame for my family and embarrassment for my Company, its customers, suppliers and employees. I also felt anxious as to what this might mean for me, the family and the business.”
NCHI are recorded by police and will show in background checks on the person, even though it is not a crime.
In a way it looks as if Harry Miller may have been even more alarmed and upset that Mrs. B had been. No wonder that he wasn’t satisfied, the case became public, and Harry Miller complained.
In 2020 the case ended up in “The High Court of Justice, Administrative Court.” From which the case description here has been taken.

The high judge concluded:
“There was not a shred of evidence that the Claimant was at risk of committing a criminal offence. The effect of the police turning up at his place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society…
Warning the Claimant that in unspecified circumstances he might find himself being prosecuted for exercising his right to freedom of expression on Twitter had the capacity to impede and deter him from expressing himself on transgender issues. In other words, the police action, taken as a whole, had a chilling effect on his right to freedom of expression.”

Court of Appeal rules police ‘hate incidents’ guidance unlawful
In 2021 Harry Miller’s case went to Court of Appeal. Harry Miller challenged police guidance used to place him on record in a national database for having committed a Non-Crime Hate Incident.
The President of the Queen’s Bench Division of the Appeal Court, Dame Victoria Sharp noted:
“At the root of the challenge is what is called perception-based recording. Specifically, the policy that non-crime hate incidents must be recorded by the police … if the incident is subjectively perceived by the “victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender” and irrespective of any evidence of the “hate” element.”
 The judge then concluded:
”… there is nothing in the Guidance about excluding irrational complaints, including those where there is no evidence of hostility, and little, if anything to address the chilling effect which this may have on the legitimate exercise of freedom to expression. Even so, where the perception of the complainant is that speech is motivated by hostility towards one of the protected strands, the Guidance says it must be categorised as a non-crime hate incident; and the language used (of a non-crime hate incident and a victim) is capable of unfairly stigmatising those against whom such a complaint is made.”
“The question in this case can therefore be framed as follows. Does the Guidance sanction or positively approve or encourage unlawful conduct viz, conduct which violates Article 10? In my judgment it does.” (Emphasis added).
The judge thus found that police guidance on recording what she termed none-crime none-hate incidents violated Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of Expression: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
The ruling of the Court of Appeal would seem to be especially important at a time when gender questions are debated so fiercely.  While Government is debating a reform of the existing Gender Recognition Act (GRA). On December 21 “The Women and Equalities Committee” actually published their latest report on the reform proposals.
A statement from The College of Policing note that the Court of Appeal has found that Police Guidance in some cases is unlawful and then writes: “The court has found we need to make safeguards in our guidance more explicit to help police officers proportionately enforce the law. We will listen to, reflect on, and review this judgement carefully and make any changes that are necessary.”
During the past 5 years Police in the UK had recorded 120,000 non-crime hate incidents with possible serious consequences for those being recorded.
Perhaps the Court of Appeal ruling may now lead to less frequent virtual “stoning” of people who exercise their right to freedom of expression to say or write things that may annoy and disturb woke opinions, but neither constitute a crime or is motivated by hate.

Addendum:
Quoted in the Court of Appeal Judgement is expert evidence from Professor Dr Kathleen Stock on what might constitute legitimately held views in mainstream academic discourse.

“Professor Stock gave an example of three utterances: “Trans women are men”; “Trans women aren’t women” and the use of the pronouns “he/him” rather than “she/her” in referring to a trans woman in the third person. Professor Stock describes these as utterances which are intended in the mouths of many people as simple observable facts, and non-evaluative utterances, along the lines of “water boils at 100 degrees” or pillar boxes in the UK are red.” So here, she says, the failure or refusal to use of a preferred pronoun of a trans woman is not an expression of hostility but an indication of a descriptive, non-evaluative belief, that the trans woman is biologically male; and the fact that such readings tend to be heard as transphobic is not therefore a reliable guide to the true nature of the utterances.”

New rules and proposed changes to the handling of refugee and migrant pressure have seen the light in Poland, the EU, UK and the US, perhaps signalling that it has become evident that the Refugee Convention from 1951 is no longer fit for purpose.
None of these countries or the EU have yet proposed to abolish the convention, but at the very least they have in praxis sought to bring in rules and political solutions that would seem to point to a pressing need for a major revision of the convention and the rules for handling the refugee and migration pressure on the borders.
In this essay we will discuss:

Attempts to circumvent the Refugee Convention

Why the Refugee Convention today is unfit for purpose

Why Europe and the U.S. may soon be overwhelmed by refugees and migrants
 

Attempts to circumvent the Refugee Convention
Are found in Poland, the EU, UK and the U.S.

Poland´s actions to contain migrant pressure on border with Belarus
“A as of 21 November, 7,831 third country nationals have entered the territories of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland from Belarus in an unauthorised manner, compared to 257 in the entire 2020 … 42,741 attempts to cross have been prevented by the three Member States.” (EU commission 1.12.2021). In addition, thousands of refugees/migrants are holding out at the Belarus’ side of the border.
Poland has tried to stem the flow with thousands of border guards and hastily constructed border fences of barbed wire. Attempts to cross the border has been met with pushbacks, with border guards arguing that they are acting in accordance with government regulation amended in August.
In October the Polish Parliament, the Sejm, passed legislation aimed at legalising pushbacks at border. People caught crossing the border illegally can be ordered to leave Polish territory (be pushed back) by the local border guard chief.
The legislation will also mean that an application for international protection in accordance with the Refugee convention, can disregarded for people caught crossing the border illegally.
The Sejm also passed a law allowing the construction of a wall or fence along the border with Belarus. Jarosław Kaczyński, the country’s vice-prime minister and security coordinator, said: “the experience of Greece shows that it is the only effective method”
The Polish reaction to pressure at the border has of cause been met with protests from diverse organisations seeking to protect refugees and migrants.

EU relaxing refugee and migrant rights
Criticism of the Poland’s actions have also come from the EU Commission, accompanied by demands that Poland tweak their legislation to bring it in accordance with the fundamental human right to seek international protection.
Since then, the EU commission has sought to provide Poland, Latvia and Lithuania with more latitude to deal with the migrant pressure from Belarus.
Just listen to the announcement from Ylva Johansson, Commissioner for Home Affairs on 1 December:
“Today, to protect our borders, and to protect people, we are giving flexibility and support to Member States to manage this emergency situation, without compromising on human rights. This should allow the Member States in question to fully uphold the right to asylum and align legislation with EU acquis. It's also time limited and targeted.”
The EU commission’s explanation for the introduction of the provisional measures refers to the still volatile situation with many migrants stranded at Latvia’s, Lithuania’s and Poland’s borders with Belarus.
“To ensure a coherent approach with the border control measures in the current emergency situation and allow Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to manage the current flows but also the people already present in their territories, this proposal sets up an emergency migration and asylum and management procedure in relation to third-country nationals apprehended or found in the vicinity of the border with Belarus after an unlawful entry or after having presented themselves at border crossing points.”
The main elements of the proposal a would allow the countries in question to

“…register an asylum application and offer the possibility for its effective lodging only at specific registration points located at the vicinity of the border including the border crossing points designated for that purpose” Presumably meaning that it would only be possible to seek asylum at such border points.

Extend deadline for registration of applications for international protection. To cope with the pressure of many migrants.

Under the specific asylum procedure, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland could apply accelerated border procedures to decide on the admissibility and substance of all applications. Meaning that decisions on the merit of the application can be decided at the border, except in cases that would endanger the health of the applicants.

It may also be possible derogate (pay less attention to?) the rules relating to removal of “third country nationals and stateless persons whose application for international protection has been rejected.” (Would that mean pushbacks under another name?).

Due to the sudden pressure of asylum seekers the countries in question may only need to ensure that basic needs for the applicants are met. Thus, no luxury accommodation.

Interestingly some of the EU proposals seem fit the arguments used by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2020, when it held that “Spain’s summary expulsion of two would-be migrants from Africa did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights because they were part of a large group that scaled the Melilla border fence between Morocco and Spanish territory.”
The Court accepted Spain’s assertion that the applicants could have sought asylum at a consulate or regular border crossing. (ijrcenter.org).
The proposals would at least seem to go some way to create an EU conform version of the Poland’s own rules. They also underline the necessity of thinking about a whole new set of rules for dealing with the flows of refugees and migrants attempting to gain unlawful entry into the EU.
Perhaps the EU is finally beginning see the need for new instruments to contain future tsunamis of refuges and migrants.

UK attempts to curb illegal migration
According to Financial Times at least 26,611 people have crossed the Channel in small dinghies and large inflatable crafts in 2021 to seek asylum in the UK. Three times more than the whole of last year.
In the attempts to put a stop to these dangerous journeys and the illegal entry into the UK various means have been tried with little apparent success. Formally working with French authorities. Paying them to step up patrols to stop the dangerous journeys across the Channel and catch the people smugglers behind the journeys.
Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, has even proposed the use of pushbacks in the Channel to stop the flow of migrants. Such proposals have of cause been met with the expected criticism from diverse organisations and lawyers. More important though is the opposition from the Border Force Guards, the very people who would be responsible for pushback actions in the Channel. Their organisation has threatened that they are prepared to launch a high court challenge against such pushback plans.
On 25 November Johnson published at letter he had sent President Macron with a series of proposals aimed at stepping up efforts to stop the stream of asylum seekers crossing the Channel. Among the proposals are:

“Joint or reciprocal maritime patrol operations in each other’s territorial waters;
deploying more advanced technology including ground sensors and radar;
reciprocal airborne surveillance by manned and unmanned aircraft, perhaps flying under joint insignia; and
deepening the work of our Joint Intelligence Cell with better real time intelligence sharing to deliver arrests and prosecutions on both sides of the Channel.”

The letter suggests joint patrols wherever this can be most effective. This could include French gendarmes and UK Border Force patrolling together at French beaches.
Boris Johnson also proposes a readmissions agreement with France, that would allow the UK to return illegal migrants to France.
Boris Johnson’s proposals were apparently seen as an affront to France and Macron reacted angrily. Although perhaps mostly due to Johnson’s publication of the letter on Twitter.
French Prime Minister Castex later argued that it was up to UK to stop the stream of migrants. “Only you can weaken criminal people-smuggling networks by opening paths to legal immigration to those who have legitimate reasons for going to your country. Only you can ensure that your labour market is sufficiently regulated to discourage those who try to work illegally.”
This is more or less where things stand at the moment, although France and the EU have apparently been willing to take new initiatives to curb cross Channel crossings after the 27 migrants drowned when their dinghy capsized.
 
New UK “Nationality and Borders Bill”
“Those who enter the UK illegally will find it harder to stay under fundamental reforms in the Nationality and Borders Bill” (publications.parliament.uk)
Among the wide range of proposals that would certainly indicate fundamental changes to the treatment of refugees and migrants are these:

“Making every effort to remove those who enter the UK illegally having travelled through a safe country in which they could and should have claimed asylum (emphasis added); only where this is not possible, those who have successful claims, having entered illegally, will receive a new temporary protection status rather than an automatic right to settle and will be regularly reassessed for removal from the UK - people entering illegally will also have limited family reunion rights and limited access to benefits

making it easier to remove someone to a safe country while their asylum claim is processed

increasing the punishment for people smugglers who facilitate illegal entry to the UK, who will face up to life imprisonment

giving the Home Secretary power to control visa availability for countries refusing to take back their own citizens

overhauling the immigration and legal system to make it fairer with faster access to justice to help prevent the need for last-minute legal claims

a new and expanded one-stop process to ensure that asylum, human rights claims and any other protection matters are made and considered together

changing how someone’s age is assessed to protect children from being wrongly moved into the adult asylum system and stop illegal entrants falsely claiming to be children.”

Taken literally these proposals would certainly seem to represent major changes to the treatment of asylum claims compared to 1951 Refugee Convention. Changes that seen as necessary in the light of the present pressure of refugees and migrants attempting to cross borders unlawfully.

US reaction to migrant pressure on their southern border
Statistics from the U.S. Customs and Border Control show that the U.S. and the Biden are having a large and growing problem at the southern border.

Source: cbp.gov

Until now there have been 1,734,686 cases of what is euphemistically called border encounters in 2021. Up from 458,088 for the whole of 2020.
It is presumed the Biden’s promises to restore and expand programs for refuges and asylum seekers, after Trump’s stringent measures to control the flow of migrants, may have caused the growth in the number of attempted border crossings. More than 200,000 people were trying to cross the border in July, representing a 21-years high.
The Biden administration promised a new and more lenient refugee and immigration policy but have been forced to retain some of the measures used by the Trump to curb the flow.
One of the measures is known as Title 42 “Under this order, CBP (Customs and Border Protection) is prohibiting the entry of certain persons who potentially pose a health risk, either by virtue of being subject to previously announced travel restrictions or because they unlawfully entered the country to bypass health screening measures.”
A scheme certainly having relevance in times of Covid-19.
Upholding the Title 42 and the so-called Title 8 schemes has allowed the Biden administration to expel tens of thousands of people seeking asylum in the U.S. (Title 42 and Title 8 expulsions, CBP)
In 2019 the Trump administration initiated the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), popularly known as the “Remain in Mexico” program. This scheme made it possible to return asylum seekers to Mexico, where they had to stay, while their claims were adjudicated in US Courts.
The Biden administration wanted to end the scheme as it was seen as inhumane and dangerous due the situation in the areas of Mexico close to the US border. But in August the Supreme Court upheld lower court ruling that ordered the Biden Administration to reintroduce the “Remain in Mexico” scheme.
 On December 2, 2021 The New York Times could report that Mexico had ”agreed to allow the United States to restart a contentious Trump-era asylum program that requires certain migrants to wait in Mexico while their cases are pending, complicating the Biden administration’s efforts to roll back the former president’s restrictive immigration policies.” (NYT).
 While the Biden administration may voice regret at the Supreme Court’s decision, it may in fact contribute to alleviate Biden’s problems with the growing flow of migrants.
And at least The Biden administration has succeeded in changing the tone. Instead of referring to migrants as aliens. “Memos issued by Customs and Border Protection, as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, tells employees to use the words “non-citizen” or “migrant.”… Instead of “illegal aliens,” which was still being used by some government officials in press releases and elsewhere, the employees of CBP and ICE should instead use “undocumented noncitizen” or “undocumented individual,” (federaltimes.com).

Paying protection money to keep migrants at bay
In October 2015 Turkey and the EU initiated a Joint Action Plan to address the problem brought about by the flow of people fleeing from Syria. A plan whereby Turkey would be paid to act as gatekeeper to prevent irregular migration to the EU.
“The Action Plan was designed to address crisis situation in three ways: (a) by addressing the root causes leading to the massive influx of Syrians, (b) by supporting Syrians under temporary protection and their host communities in Turkey (Part I) and (c) by strengthening cooperation to prevent irregular migration flows to the EU (Part II). The EU and Turkey will address this crisis together in a spirit of burden sharing.”
No wonder that President Putin teased the EU recently by suggesting that the EU make a similar agreement with Belarus’s Lukashenko. Paying him to be gatekeeper.
In 2017 Italy’s very active Interior Minister, Marco Minniti, prepared a somewhat similar agreement between Libya and Italy to prevent irregular migration from Libya to Italy
”On 2 February 2017 a Memorandum of Understanding  on development cooperation, illegal immigration, human trafficking, fuel smuggling and reinforcement of border security (hereafter ‘memorandum’ or ‘MoU’), was signed between the Italian Prime Minister Gentiloni and Fayez al-Serraj, Head of the UN-backed Libyan Government of National Accord.” (eumigrationlawblog.eu)
Other countries like Austria, Denmark and the UK have aired plans to establish camp facilities in third countries, where asylum seekers would have to remain while their applications would checked, somewhat like the U.S. “Remain in Mexico” scheme.
Outsourcing the management of irregular migration flows to authoritarian gatekeepers or establishing camps in third countries may be seen as a rather devious way to avoid problems with Human right conventions and especially of course the 1951 Refugee Convention.
In a way these measures represent an out of sight, out of mind, let us forget about the problem solution.
But again, this demonstrates that the system for handling the pressure of refugee and migrants is broken. It points to the urgent need for substituting the 1951 Refugee Convention with a fundamentally new way of handling present and future refugee and migration flows directed towards to Europe and the U.S. The present ad hoc schemes, and out of sight solution are neither fair nor sustainable.


Why the Refugee Convention today is unfit for purpose
The articles of the 1951 Convention may seem reasonable and comprehensible at the time and problem context in which it was made. Today the Convention is an anachronism that is totally inadequate, perhaps even harmful or even disastrous in relation to the new refugees and migration problems facing Europe and the U.S. Huge flows of people who want not only security but also better living conditions. Selective flows of mainly young men from a completely different cultural and religious background. Flows from afar, from Afghanistan and Pakistan across many borders. Flows of people from an Africa unable to support a huge population growth. These are not situations comparable to the post-war situation in Europe. However, there are other problems with the Convention. Here a look at some of them.
 
The definition of refugees is no longer sufficient
The Convention refers to people persecuted on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. There is no talk of people fleeing because of wars, warlike conditions, barrel bombs or modern weapons of mass destruction, such as poison gas or radioactive contamination. UNHCR's Handbook states: "Persons who leave their country of origin as a result of international or national conflicts are not normally considered refugees under the 1951 Convention or Protocol." (quoted in Holzer).
However, it is believed that an alien invasion and occupation could result in persons falling within the definitions of the Convention. People fleeing natural disasters or climate change do not fall under the convention's rulings at all. Some of these problems were already discussed during work on the original Convention. It was noted that the refugee definition "did not refer to refugees from natural disasters, because it was difficult to imagine that fires, floods, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, for instance, differentiated between their victims on the grounds of race, religion, or political opinion." (Holzer). The definitions of the Convention talk of people persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, but they do not cover a situation in which everyone is exposed to the same dangers, such as natural disasters or civil war. The concept of persecution has changed since the convention was created. OAU's 1969 expanded refugee definition has taken this into account: “The term “refugee” shall also apply to every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek
refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality " (OAU Convention). In the so-called Cartagena Declaration In 1984, countries from Central America, Mexico and Panama also agreed on a more comprehensive declaration that took into account Central American conditions in a series of conclusions dealing, for example, with internally displaced persons: "To express its concern at the situation of displaced persons within their own countries. In this connection, the Colloquium calls on national authorities and the competent international organizations to offer protection and assistance to those people and to help relieve the hardship which many of them face." (Cartagena Declaration). In other ways, too, the problems of the current Convention have been dealt with by granting people humanitarian protection. For example, as in the UK's "Exceptional leave to remain." or in a recent version 'Humanitarian Protection', awarded to those "who, though not refugees, would, if removed, face in the country of return a serious risk to life or person arising from the death penalty, unlawful killing or torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (Migration Watch). Yet there are major problems in distinguishing between refugees and migrants. Should people fleeing general distress and misery in Africa be classified as refugees? Should people from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh? Before the 1951 Convention, concrete lists were even drawn up of who could be considered refugees, for example from the Spanish Civil War. Would it be better to have such concrete lists than the vague general terms we find in the 1951 Convention?

Naturalization as a solution?
Naturalization as the only solution to the refugee problem today seems inadequate. Today, it would be strange to imagine that refugees would always be expected to have permanent residence in the recipient country. There will be an expectation that refugees would return to the country they fled to if conditions allow it again. But that was not the situation after the Second World War. "In recent years the 1951 Convention has been criticised for being linked to the single solution of asylum only. The experience and practice of the West in the '50's and '60's was that nobody gave a thought to the idea that someone fleeing from Eastern Europe might return to their country of origin. If they were recognised as a refugee, that was enough for them to be granted permanent residence and eventually accorded citizenship. Return was not in the discourse or practice of the '50's and '60's." (Chatham House).  

Eurocentrism
By virtue of its origin, the Convention can be said to be Eurocentric. First and foremost, it was designed to help to solve a European refugee problem after the Second World War. It is also in this light that Articles on rights, education and work must be seen. “There is a European flavour in the commissions of the 1951 Convention, especially Articles 2-34 and the concentration on social and welfare rights, on education, on access to employment and on access to the liberal professions." (Chatham House).  

Refugees are first seen at the border
The convention does not see refugees, as it were, until they appear at the border of a recipient country. This may not have been a problem after the Second World War, but seems totally inadequate in relation to the current refugee problems. Nor does the Convention see internally displaced persons as they do not show up at the borders.
Incidentally, for refugees today, it is not a question of simply reaching safety. They seem happy to cross several borders to reach the preferred place of residence, regardless of the fact that security can be achieved in the countries they have crossed through. It is a problem that a border in Schengen Europe is, after all, basically just a border on paper and therefore not a border that can stop refugees seeking not only security but also better living conditions. The Dublin Regulation cannot be said to have had much effect in the current situation. The convention does not seem to cover the kind of refugees we see today, coming from Africa, Syria, Afghanistan via Turkey, across the Mediterranean or recently Belarus to arrive in Europe or coming from far away in Latin America to the U.S. By its very nature, the Convention has focused on the immediate area. It would therefore be relevant today to discuss whether the Convention should apply at all to persons, who have crossed safe countries to reach a particular sought-after country. "A study in the 1980's showed that the primary reasons for moving from the first country of refuge were protection-related either by being at risk from the agents of their country of origin or simply not being able to survive and earn a living. Although this was recognised twenty years ago nothing much has been done about it" (Chatham House).  Today negative push factors seem less important. Pull factors seem more important to understand attractivity of say countries in North Western Europe or the U.S.

The skewed focus
The focus is only on those who present themselves at the border with the EU, or in overcrowded inflatable dinghies. There is enormous discrimination in favour of refugees who have the opportunity (health, resources and connections) to reach the border of a sought-after recipient country. We do not see those left behind as internally displaced persons, or in refugee camps, unable to improve their own situation. “Priority is given to those present, on the basis of their mobility, rather than to those with the greatest need." (Research Paper, Parliament of Australia). In many of today's refugee flows, we see that about 70 percent may be young men, whom many TV journalists refer to as traumatized and exhausted, despite the fact that their ability to arrive at or cross borders do not indicate that they have problems. If nothing else, it marks a huge difference from the situation after the Second World War, when young men were often missing in the refugee influx from the east.  

Distribution of refugees
The Convention does not deal with issues concerning the distribution of refugees, for example, in local areas, or by country in Europe. There is no question of fair burden-sharing. Probably because it was not relevant in 1951, when refugees belonged to very specific countries. Germans from the Baltics were, of course, going to Germany.  

Nothing about demands on the countries people are fleeing from 
The convention does not mention demands on the country refugees are trying to leave. Perhaps not so relevant in the 1950s either, but very relevant today. Not first and foremost for those countries, where war reigns, but certainly for those countries where people are fleeing for other reasons.  

No focus on causes
The Convention cannot be used by the international community to address the basic problems that may be the reason for the formation of refugee flows.  

Problems in recipient countries ignored
The Convention does not look at all at the enormous problems that may arise in the recipient countries in the event of large flows of refugees. Be it cultural, religious, social, political or financial problems. Again, one could afford to ignore these aspects in the 1950s, but one cannot do that today. One only has to look at Lebanon to see what problems can arise when many refugees with divergent political and ideological ideas make up a significant proportion of the population. Closer to that, one can recall the formation of ghettos, banlieues, and "No Go" zones in European countries. Or the indirect effect of major shifts in the political spectrum, with the rise of new parties that have a less optimistic view of immigration than those who stand for "Willkommenskultur" or simply act as naïve "friendly citizens.” One simply cannot afford to ignore the effect of large flows of refugees into the recipient countries. At worst, there is a risk that the problems they have fled from are reproduced in the recipient country in the form of conflicts between different groups of refugees, or between refugees and the rest of population, for example as a result of religious fanaticism.  

The problem of  criminals and war criminals
In some cases, the Convention is blamed for being the reason why countries are not able to send criminals back to their countries of origin, but that may not be the case.. The Convention does not apply to those people who have: (a) has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
(c) has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.(1951 Convention).
 
Legal complications
The drafters of the 1951 Convention did not consider that decision-making would be anything but discretionary by an enlightened administration but without their being hampered by the requirements of the due process as we understand them."(Chatham House). This is no longer the case. Now it is no longer just a question of an enlightened administration, but of rules and legal subtleties. Which means that even people who are unlikely to be able to obtain refugee status can hope that the process of returning them can be dragged out for so long that they can eventually stay.


Why Europe and the U.S. may soon be overwhelmed by refugees and migrants
The existing problems we have discussed will be dwarfed by future problems. Europe and the U.S. risk being flooded with a tsunami of desperate people, especially from Africa. Fleeing due a combination of:

Population growth
Economic factors
Conflicts and wars
Climate change

Population growth
First, take a look at population growth in different regions of the world, as the UN has sought to quantify it.
The following table should make it evident to decision makers that the present mix of idealistic, but un-manageable conventions and ad hoc schemes will be totally inadequate in the future.

(population.un.org)

Economic factors
The huge gap in GDP between countries in Africa and the EU indicate the magnitude of the economic tension potential between Africa and Europe. Not because we think potential migrants look at GDP when assessing where they can expect to improve their own opportunities. For prospective migrants, it is probably accounts of and images of living conditions in Europe that matter, but we assume that the notions thus formed will correlate with the differences in GDP.

Conflicts and wars
Due to population growth and climate changes there hastily growing potential for larger conflicts. “The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, which monitors incidents of conflict around the world, found that there had been 21,600 incidents of armed conflict in Africa in 2019 (up to 30 November). For the same period in 2018, that number was just 15,874. That represents a 36% increase.” (reliefweb.int)

Climate change
Again, Africa will be the main focus. Less rain for the arid areas and growing populations is the recipe for potential disasters. Disasters that may be avoided for a short time by providing the areas with outside help, but feeding people in enormous refugee camps cannot be a lasting solution.
The alternative is that we must expect a renewed migration pressure. Not necessarily to Europe at first, because it is hardly the most disadvantaged who can flee or migrate to Europe. It requires resources that the weakest and poorest do not possess. They may be able to flee to areas of the neighboring countries and find accommodation in huge camps, which in turn require supplies from outside. Nevertheless, over time we must assume that climate change will trigger big waves of migration towards Europe.

A drastic change of policy is necessary
Maintaining an overinterpreted convention not fit for purpose is naïve in a world, where there are millions of displaced refugees and hundreds of millions of potential migrants. Large-scale migration towards Europe from poor, unstable countries in Africa and Asia with rapidly growing populations can be foreseen.
As the flow of refugees and migrants is not expected to slow down, something drastic will have to be done. In a very near future Europe and the United States will be forced to make external borders impermeable to irregular migration.
Unless this happens, this century will see "The last days of a white world" to use a headline from the Guardian.
Do politicians dare to acknowledge this at all, or do they ignore the problem, seeing it as a problem that cannot be discussed at all in the name of political correctness.
One quote shows it is an attitude that affects the very attempt to create knowledge about the problem: "One demographer, who didn't want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: 'It's a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Europeans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK. That would probably be the first time an Indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority in its historic homeland.'" (Guardian)
Europe and The U.S. still have a choice. We can choose tacitly and helplessly to accept dramatic, irreversible shifts in the ethnic composition. Or we can choose to actively prevent the white European and U.S. majority from becoming a minority in their own countries within a relatively short period of time.
If we choose to act, something must be done very soon to stop immigration from non-Western countries or at least reduce it to a fraction of what it has been. Whether it's refugees or migrants. Otherwise, Europe and the U.S. risk a very uncertain future, marked by growing ethnic conflicts. Conflicts that may result in simmering frictions or open civil war, as in the former Yugoslavia or in Northern Ireland.
"History is not sanguine about the capacity of ethnic groups or religions to forget their differences. The ethnic transformation implicit in current trends would be a major, unlooked-for, and irreversible change in British society, unprecedented for at least a millennium. It would, perhaps, be the biggest ever unintended consequence of government activity. In a democracy it would be appropriate, at the very least, for the matter now to enter public debate."(spi.ox.ac.uk).