Should high-income countries take in refugees?

Perspective Writers' Votes
Loading Discussion

High-income countries should take in significant numbers of refugees.

Pros
Cons
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Accepting refugees can be harmful for their home countries.

  • Taking in refugees can have negative economic and cultural consequences for high-income countries.

  • Any responsibility that high-income countries have towards refugees can be discharged without taking them in.

  • A country's wealth is irrelevant to whether it should take in refugees.

  • Countries do not have any moral obligations to people who are not their citizens or residents.

  • Taking in refugees creates security problems for high-income countries.

  • Accepting refugees encourages more people to attempt dangerous journeys to reach high-income countries, which results in more harm to refugees on net.