Why failed asylum seekers should have a conditional right to stay: an ethical guideline for policy debates

Abstract

This article aims to reconcile the moral rights of failed asylum seekers with the integrity of the asylum system. Can the state grant failed asylum seekers a right to stay without undermining the core purpose of the refugee system? Can the state sometimes return those whose asylum claim has failed without violating their moral rights? The article argues that restricting the rights of asylum seekers and reducing the length of the asylum process raise ethical concerns and practical problems. It emphasizes that liberal states should charitably interpret the norms of international protection. It proposes to extend the right to stay on social membership grounds qualified by a good faith condition, and limit returns to those that have lodged their claim in bad faith. Engaging with the good/bad faith distinction the article aims to counteract a culture of suspicion towards asylum seekers by clarifying what it really means to launch a claim in bad faith and to realign its scope in a morally appropriate way.