Unlikely if we're talking about nearest borders, as ppl seem to argue now.
My point is that it seems that we want to change the rules because we don't like the asylum seekers... or perhaps the rule itself. Personally, I feel if you're a genuine asylum seeker, wherever you end up, doesn't matter, you should be given safe haven. I'm sure we'll probably disagree on that. But I don't see nearest border (or any spurious criteria) as a condition for them to satisfy.
Nope, it's about NOT changing the rules.
I don't have a problem with asylum seekers. After they reach a place of safety, they're no longer refugees, and there are systems in place that allow them to then seek asylum further afield.
I don't have a problem with migrants.
I do have a problem with people adding to the suffering of others by trying to short circuit the system.

