Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should high-income countries take in refugees?
High-income countries should take in significant numbers of refugees.
Closing borders to refugees is equivalent to committing an act of violence against those refugees. It is not an omission - a failure to help someone in need - but an active harm.
Accepting refugees benefits the citizens of high-income countries.
As part of a global community we are all global citizens and have moral responsibilities towards each other that transcend national boundaries.
High-income countries are complicit in exploiting - and hence profiting from - many exchanges that have contributed to the current world-wide refugee crisis.
Refugees are desperate, vulnerable, innocent human beings. Given that every human being is of equal dignity and humanity, high-income countries must help them.
High-income countries have signed international agreements to take in refugees.
It is in the long-term interests of humanity for high-income countries to host refugees.
Due to their wealth, high-income countries have the ability and therefore a special obligation to take in refugees.
Any responsibility that high-income countries have towards refugees can typically be discharged without taking them in.
Countries do not have any obligations to people who are not their citizens or residents.
Taking in refugees creates security problems for high-income countries.
Taking in refugees has negative consequences for high-income countries.
Accepting refugees encourages more people to attempt dangerous journeys to reach high-income countries, which results in more harm on net.
Should Countries Taking In Refugees Confiscate their Valuables?
Should people be free to choose the country in which they live?
Should all EU-member countries close their borders as some Eastern members, like Hungary did?