Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees
The world is awash with people forced to leave their homes and flee for their lives as a result of persecution and political upheaval. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the main international body dealing with refugees, estimates their number could be as high as 40 million - more than half of them within the borders of their own countries (Internally Displaced Persons, or IDPs). Over 12 million people are formally classified by the UNHCR as refugees - that is, people who, unlike IDPs, have fled to other, usually neighbouring countries to escape religious, ethnic or political persecution. This does not include the more than 3.9 million Palestinian refugees who fall under the responsibility of another UN agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) - or people displaced by drought, earthquakes or other natural disasters, who are often loosely, but technically incorrectly, referred to as "refugees".
A recent situation in the U.S. caught the attention of many people and countries when President Trump refused to let people into the U.S from certain countries—including refugees. This caused an outrage amongst many people and has led to the debate of "should developed countries accept more refugees?"
While the media strongly portrays the arguments for accepting refugees, it may not always show the other side of the coin and the opinions of those who may be against the entrance of refugees to their countries--no matter how dire their situation may be.
Everyone makes valid points on both sides with many people feeling strongly about what they believe on the topic. To help provide readers with opinions for and against accepting refugees, following are arguments for and their rebuttals.
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Nations that are affluent tend to experience a statistical deficiency in technical hands/prowess
It is a well-researched and statistical facts that immigrant populations in affluent western countries tend to be significantly more scientific as a fraction as their population than their local-for-longer surrogates.
Arab countries offer an example of moneyed nations in the world suffering because they do not take in immigrants. People flock to Arab countries in hordes of thousands to work there for sky-rocketing incomes expect now the Arab leadership is trying to exclude foriegners and create greater/mass opportunities for locals alone. since local Arabs are not very educated or tech-savvy this has been a counterproductive move a prominent recent example being the state of Egyptian economic affairs.(Egypt qualifies as Arab even though it's in North Africa).
America is the prime example for which successful immigration policies has brought in throngs of educated and skillful immigrants pushing the limits of the American dream to infinity and beyond.
The U.S has successful 'legal' immigration policies. Illegal immigration across the border into Mexico is an issue that is centered on border-control inefficiency rather than faulty immigration rules. Illegals do not abide by nor contend to the rules; well, because they're “illegal immigrants”, hello?
Arab countries are happy they have oil: A source of perpetual income almost as trusty as the housing market that fell apart in the recent financial crisis.
America does not have successful immigration policies.
We have so much, we should give to those who don't
One of the primary arguments when it comes to this question or topic is if we have so much, why can't we give to those who have gone through inexplicable horrors and problems and who have less? It's a valid argument in that many 1st world countries have stable systems and resources to help many of these people, although not all.
It is many people's opinion that in developed countries, people live relatively peaceful lives and while there may be people who struggle to make ends meet, there aren't very many people experiencing what refugees may be experiencing in their home countries: running from bombs, hunger, fear, being separated from family, and injuries.
Many believe that we have enough housing, tax payer money, and ability to provide safe homes and opportunity for refugees.
Of course, there are those who will bring up the opposite. Many people believe that developed countries already have plenty of work to do with their own citizens. In the case of the U.S., the people who were against receiving refugees from Syria and other countries argued that Americans already have so many underprivileged people living on welfare and many homeless people who could be receiving that help instead.
Many refugees are highly educated people who can contribute to our societies
People who are for the argument of developed countries allowing refugees are of the opinion that refugees actually contribute to societies and help the economy. They believe that the children whose lives are saved will grow up to be functional citizens of the country who can give back. Many people offer the point that many refugees coming in have degrees from their home countries, such as doctors, teachers, or engineers.
It is this observation that insists that refugees will in fact bring something to the table when they are allowed into developing countries. Another argument is that many refugees are young enough to be able to provide years of employment and working which will bring more revenue and help the economy in the developed country.
There are those who consider that the influx of thousands of refugees means that the citizens of the developed country will lose their jobs. Many insist that it's difficult as it is to find employment and with the arrival of thousands of people who will need jobs and to send their children to school, the system will be affected and there will be an even need for more teachers and more jobs.
It is the belief of many in many developed countries that there are already big problems with employment and good teachers in classrooms to cover the needs of the country as it is and that refugees will be hired for jobs that many citizens could have themselves.
It is our moral duty to give to the less-fortunate
Many people in developed countries believe that as those who are more fortunate-who have been blessed to live in a safe country that isn't going through a civil war or extreme poverty-they have a duty to help those who are in dire situations.
This argument is approached from the perspective of basic humanity: if there are people whose lives have been torn apart with their homes being bombed, family members dying, and facing hunger on a daily basis, how can we ignore them and not do our part to help them?
Because many of the countries where refugees come from are home to many terrorist groups, there is an overwhelming concern that if developed countries accept these people into their countries, they will be accepting terrorists and making their homes more susceptible to attacks.
They also believe that if they open the doors to refugees, they will be allowing people to push their religious beliefs that they don't agree with that may go against their values as well.
It's what our country was built on
While this argument is specific to the U.S., it may ring for other developed countries' values. The U.S. was built on the idea of freedom of speech, helping those who want freedom and justice for all, and as it says on the Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor…" and is a big reason why many Americans want to open their doors to accept more refugees.
Many argue that the majority of Americans are children of immigrants and refugees themselves and that if it wasn't for their families being allowed to make a new life in the U.S. than they wouldn't even be here themselves.
It's that deep belief that this is what America is about that has many Americans wanting to allow refugees-especially from Syria-to move to the United States to live safe and protected lives.
There are those who believe that allowing people from other countries that have been war-torn or who have been affected by violence will essentially be bringing in that violence and those issues into their countries. They insist that people from countries where perhaps women are unappreciated or even beaten or abused will treat people from the new country in the same way.
Many believe that the problems of the refugee's home country are a part of the nation as a whole and they are afraid of changing the safe society and culture that they are a part of. They believe that many refugees are unable to integrate fully into a culture because of their lack of accepting customs and culture of the new country.
There have been situations where things have happened due to some refugees not respecting the customs of the new country or still behaving as if they were in their own country and of course, these instances have stuck in the minds of many people who may have decided that refugees make a country unsafe.
It's a complex subject that may be difficult to define. What do you think about developing countries accepting refugees? Are you for or against? Do you think it's the wise thing to do or do you consider it unsafe?
The government has to take care of the problems in that nation first
Already, wealthy nations have a lot of homeless people and other problems. Accepting the refugees will only increase this problem.The nation has the conflict of their own. They should take care of that before solving other people's problems.
Refugees are kept in rather secure camps until they have independent income&homes; they cannot be homeless under refugee-status.
What do you think?