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.
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.
Should Countries Taking In Refugees Confiscate their Valuables?
How should Europe deal with refugees from Africa and the Near/Middle East?