Are wealthy countries that don't take asylum seekers breaking international law and risking not being traded with?

Sorry CCP supporter but it takes a multi year vetting process to weed out all terrorists and France and England are full of them

Hello, i add, firstly I think that "a civic participation" is identical to "an international organizations" where the both interested about a democracy "a population or community govern themselves", but i think instead use each one independently then i prefer that using "a civic participation" and the international organizations organize it, where politics science moved to "democratic" as abstract subject, and "a civic participation" is practical subject of democracy and international organizations organize it. in other hands, according my post-modernity mind we treat old world "which has populations" differ from new worlds "space colonization" such as Antarctica about travelling, where the term "migration" come instead the term "immigration" and the old world stable not fit fro travelling often, but new world such as space colonization and Antarctica is appropriated for travelling. and cancelled systems such as imperialism "french and British and Italian imperialism" and their followers which was bandit and mistake, but an United nations and its subsystems and its electronic government come instead of it.

The UNHCR isn't really legally binding in that way but there is no signatory nation that takes no refugees. Some may feel that some don't take enough, but they all take some and as there are no numbers or quotas in the UNHCR that's enough to stay on the right side of that treaty. 

Well off nations should take refuge searchers however the one running over the Channel fro France are not shelter searchers.

You mean like those Arab gulf states? 

A country cannot legally (UN Refugee Convention) refuse to accept an asylum seeker but if it is established that they have passed through a safe country where they could have claimed asylum they could, at least in theory, legally be sent back to that country. There seem to be no effective sanctions that can be applied to countries that breach the Convention other than 'name and shame'. Prior to Brexit the UK could, under the EU's 'Dublin Agreement', in theory return an asylum seeker to the country through which they entered the EU (e.g. Greece, Italy or Spain).

In practice there are hurdles to returning an asylum seeker to another safe country if that country won't accept them. No airline would take a deportee to a country where they cannot be landed and it's not as if the RAF could land in another country without permission and dump them on the runway.

Why? It is well documented that a certain % of these so called asylum seekers. Wish to do harm to the country they are trying to enter. Can't really pass laws that require one to shoot themselves, now can we?

Wealthy countries should take asylum seekers but the one coming across the Channel fro France are not asylum seekers. They are illegal economic migrants and parasites.