Should first world countries take in more refugees?
© Nicolas Economou / Shutterstock, Inc.
Topic

Should first world countries take in more refugees?

by kate added 4 months ago

Yes Add Point
  • Argument For

    The US has played a big role in destabilizing the Middle East and has caused many hardhips and chaos in the region, not just with the wars they started (http://thedailyjournalist.com/the-historian/destabilizing-the-middle-east-a-historical-perspective-of-us-foreign-policy/) It is only right that countries like the US take responsibility in helping the innocent civilians affected by their decade long interventions.

    by kate added 4 months ago 1 0

    Argument Against

    This argument would have to be argued/applied on a case by case basis. In the majority of cases where refugees are being generated, the root causes are domestic issues like religious extremism, sectarian/political/ethnic intolerance, or authoritarian regimes. While first world countries could have directly/indirectly inflamed some of these issues, they certainly are not responsible for the majority of these in the world.

    by drake added 2 months ago 0 0

    Argument For

    Many refugees flee from terrible conditions. They come from war-torn countries, their homes may have been destroyed, relatives killed and there is no more work, food or even water. For example, in Syria around 400,000 people have been killed in the Syrian Civil War alone. As such there is no doubt that a lot of people are dying and or suffering immensely. Relocating refugees to safe countries, could potentially safe many lifes and reduce suffering by

    • Allowing them to travel safely to their refuge destinations, instead of letting them die on the way. Several thousand people alone have died trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea, because they saw it as their only chance to reach a better place.

    • In case of high numbers of refugees, distributing the load amongst countries instead of neighboring countries like Lebanon being overwhelmed.

    • Getting people out of conflict zones and dangerous situations quicker, greatly reduce their risk of dying and suffering inhumanly.

    These examples show that human lives can be saved and human suffering reduced tremendously by allowing people escaping from bad conditions to come to a safe place. This is in my opinion the strongest argument and is a matter of morality and human decency that we should not let countless innocent people die and suffer without doing something, such as letting them into a country. It is a quick help measure which positive impact clearly outweighs any negatives

    by kate added 4 months ago 2 0

    Argument For

    Going back to histories , first world countries have been the ones to go into, now, third world countries and taken whatever they wanted and stripped them from things that could've prevented them from being in the state they are today, so for these first world countries to be against refugees fleeing from what their ancestors caused makes no sense what so ever. Three steps to fixing a problem, acknowledging there is one, then working out how it got to this point, and then fix it . Acknowledge your ancestors have done wrong in the past by going into other countries, forcing war upon them and taking what is not there's,  and now today you can do something about it by offering help to these poor people who are suffering from the actions of your ancestors. You cannot burn someone's house and expect them not to cry out for help to someone that can fix it 

    by WAB661 added 1 month ago 0 0

    Argument For

    Refugees bring diversity, new knowledge and culture, such as e.g. great food. Some turn out to have a huge positive impact on the nation, just think of Steve Jobs, he is the son of a Syrian refugee who has done more for the US economy and state of technology than one could have ever imagined.

    by kate added 4 months ago 2 0

    Argument Against

    Refugees from certain parts of the world can also bring with them viewpoints that are incompatible with western values. Gay rights, genital mutilation, honour killings, women's rights are a few topics that come to mind. Immigrants who are voluntarily integrating into a new culture by their choice, will most likely be moderate since they choosing to emmigrate to a secular country in the first place. Refugees who are being forced to leave their country not voluntarily, but because of violence, could be less interested in culturally integrating.

    by drake added 2 months ago 0 1

    Argument For

    Our world consists of multiple countries, and many different races. Though we are still a family. We need to help each other out because, in the end, we can not survive without each other. We all help each other to succeed. Yes, some countries are more successful than others. But, that doesn't mean we have to turn our backs on one another.  First world countries are lucky, we are granted with more than we need. We have to be helpful, and not be selfish and help those who may need our help. A lot of them have children, would you guys like to have your children not having the necessities of life, and at such a young age to be experiencing war. Every day all of them fear that today might be their last day. Why should any of them suffer because of the choices of others.

    by julia added 1 month ago 0 0

  • Argument For

    If we let people come into our country, there is a high risk that there are very bad people amongst them that we are unable to filter out and that will commit terrible criminal acts, potentially even terror attacks. Letting foreigners into our country is a risk to our citizens and the government is supposed to protect us the citizens!

    by cgraham added 4 months ago 1 0

    Argument Against

    It is true, that by letting more people into the country, there are more people to potentially do bad things. But one needs to see the danger of terrorism and other crimes in perspective and not get carried away with fear. Since 9/11 very few people have been killed by terrorists in the US. Every year around 20 people are killed in terrorist acts, a number that is extremely low compared to the number of Americans killed by gun violence every year which is above 30,000 and rising steadily. Hence, one should be around 1,000 times more scare of gun violence than terrorist attacks. (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/) To put these numbers into perspective, similar to the death by gun violence, over 30,000 people in the US die in car accidents every year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year). Should all cars be banned as a result? Most people will argue no, as cars have such large benefits to society, that most believe their benefits still outweigh these risks. As such I believe, that the additional risk of terrorism is so low, that it should not hinder the saving of thousands of lives from a humanitarian perspective alone.

    by kate added 4 months ago 1 0

    Argument For

    When ISIS is claiming to have smuggled thousands of operatives in with the refugees: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/555434/Islamic-State-ISIS-Smuggler-THOUSANDS-Extremists-into-Europe-Refugees

    And, the FBI has admitted they do not have enough information to adequately screen them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63Z2HB3IqFw

    And one person in a truck can kill 86 people and wound 434: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

    There is an increased risk that should be considered.

    by drake added 2 months ago 1 0

    Argument For

    Every year 80 million people are born into extreme poverty world wide. The United States takes in 1 million immigrants every year. These immigrants are usually the most qualified individuals from their homelands, ones that could bring about significant change. So we rob them of their qualified individuals, and the poverty level rises 79 million every year. These people need to be helped where they live. Immigration is not a solution. Mic drop.

    by financial added 3 months ago 2 2

    Argument Against

    This argument has no bearing on the topic as refugees fleeing from violence are not the same as immigrants fleeing poverty

    by drake added 2 months ago 2 0

    Argument For

    If refugees are allowed in, also people may come in who are not legitimate refugees, who are just looking to exploit our resources. As many are coming from third-world countries they are often not very well educated and cannot do much to advance the country, except taking low paying jobs. If they do not find jobs and cannot integrate, they will just exploit our welfare systems and be a burden on tax payers. Some may even turn to criminal activities to make money and make our country unsafe.

    by cgraham added 4 months ago 0 1

    Argument Against

    It is true, that in today's world where there is so much inequality between the standard of living in countries around the world, a world without borders could become chaotic, as the number of people coming to certain countries in the search for a better life may be larger than the country can integrate into society at that rate. However, the number of refugees in the world who are suffering tremendously in their home country and have to escape, is not very large. If first world countries would take responsibility, refugees could be easily distributed in a way that allows them to be integrated well into the respective countries at a small economic cost and in the long run are expected to benefit the economy ((http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21688938-europes-new-arrivals-will-probably-dent-public-finances-not-wages-good-or). Just take Steve Jobs as an example. The son of a Syrian refugee has brought so much money into the US economy that his positive impact alone likely is higher than any costs refugees will incur over the next 100 years.

    by kate added 4 months ago 1 0