by what right?
As I understand it, asylum used to be termed ‘political asylum’. It was for those whose personal actions and openly-expressed beliefs left them in danger in their own countries. The leadership of the ANC found refuge in London in the 1960s (yippee). As did the Ayatollah Khomenei in Paris in the 70s (hmmm). The numbers of such people were necessarily small.
At some point the ‘political’ was dropped, and ‘asylum’ became a broad category that could include almost anyone from a list of officially wretched countries. As people spotted the opportunity of a better life (and who can blame them?), numbers of applications soared. But they were by and large not political activists.
When you make an asylum claim somewhere you are basically telling that country, and, by extension, its people, that they have a moral responsibility for your welfare. They may agree or disagree. They may send you back to a wretched life or offer you preferential access to scarce social housing. It's messy and morally difficult.
I’m not sure if the many Somalis in my old borough of Hammersmith and Fulham quite realise that the homes they occupy are unavailable to locals black or white. Their demeanour doesn’t suggest they are very grateful for this privilege, but they have been encouraged by the system to think of it as their right. A right denied to others with deeper roots in the community. It’s fiendishly tricky.
If only countries were cool-headed and honest enough to say exactly what they can offer to how many and from where. But instead they shirk the issue. People suffer and political ill-will festers.