The Alternative for Germany (AfD), a right-wing populist party, was founded in response to the euro crisis. Its initial focus was the abolition of the euro, the single currency of most EU member states. While hostility to immigration was present from the outset, it was not yet a defining trait. The party failed to enter the German federal parliament in the first federal elections after its founding in 2013. However, after pushing out some of the more moderate founders, the party raised its profile as an anti-immigrant force, particularly in opposition to Angela Merkel’s decision to admit more than one million refugees in 2015. Today, it is the main opposition party in the German parliament and, in opinion polls, it rivals the governing Christian Democrats for the top spot.

While the rise of the AfD is a distinctly German story, the underlying dynamic is not. Discontent with immigration has fueled the ascent of right-wing populist parties across the globe. Any discussion of democracy’s future, therefore, cannot ignore this discontent. In Europe and beyond, we observe an immigration paradox. On the one hand, immigration helps to offset the effects of demographic change in ageing societies, where many jobs go unfilled due to a shortage of qualified working-age individuals. Across Europe, there are not enough doctors, nurses, childcare workers, teachers, geriatric nurses, engineers, technicians, or truck drivers. Immigration could help address this shortage. On the other hand, resistance to immigration remains widespread, and restricting it is often among voters’ top concerns.

Much of the unease surrounding immigration stems from the asylum system. Asylum focuses on the needs of refugees, regardless of the host state’s preferences, which creates a sense of lost control when refugees must be admitted once legal requirements are met. Debate over asylum is framed less in political than in legal terms. Proponents of a more generous approach to refugee admission often invoke the Geneva Refugee Convention and its incorporation into domestic and EU law. Meanwhile, in Europe at least, there is little serious discussion of needs-based immigration. Instead, asylum has turned immigration into a toxic issue in the political arena.

Fixing the asylum system, therefore, has become an urgent concern. Recently, The Economist proposed scrapping the asylum system to build something better. Today, most refugees remain in poor countries bordering conflict zones. Only the better-off attempt the dangerous journey to richer countries in Europe and North America to claim asylum. This arrangement has serious flaws: it benefits relatively few, exposes people to peril, fuels human smuggling, and is often exploited by those seeking economic opportunity rather than fleeing persecution. A more effective approach would prioritize improving conditions for refugees in states near conflict zones and abolishing the right to asylum for those arriving from safe third countries. Wealthy nations, however, should not evade responsibility. They should contribute financially to support refugees’ integration into host societies.

It is probably unrealistic to expect the conclusion of a multilateral treaty on this issue. However, the model could be implemented through a series of bilateral agreements. Wealthy nations would have incentives to sign such agreements and pay money if they have a reasonable expectation that this would significantly reduce the number of asylum seekers who come to their borders. At the same time, states have to ensure that these agreements are not just about paying money for stopping the flow of refugees. Instead, they should also guarantee certain minimum standards of treatment in the host state. This solution is certainly not perfect and has its own downsides. However, such a system would serve more refugees, reduce abuses, and defuse the toxic politics surrounding immigration. It might also open space for a constructive debate on how migration can be better regulated and used to mitigate demographic decline.