Amazon.com Widgets

Do first world countries have a moral obligation to accept refugees?

Asked by: maxmoo
  • Easier to Use

    The U.S. Needs the metric system and will eventually have to start using it. We have so much trouble trading with other countries because they use the metric system. Also, it is a lot easier to use. The customary system is all random numbers and the metric system counts by tens.

  • I agree partially

    I do agree that all first world countries have the moral obligation to accept refugees but only to some extent. In cases like Japan or China where the country is so over populated that if the were to accept many refugees the country would not be able to sustain them. Compared to countries like Australia, America, Canada and other first world countries should defiantly accept refugees and in some situations take a lot more. I do feel that accepting refugees isn't the best solution and that first world countries need to find a better solution to solve the refugee crisis,

  • Yes I somewhat agree.

    Imagine you are living in a country under a viscous civil war (southern Somalia and Syria would make good examples)

    Yet your country is next to a little more prosperous nation. You and your family flee the country with the most you could carry and head off.

    Theirs a reason why their called "refugees"
    They are suffering in their country and their last choice is to flee. Why not accept them?

    I say you should be morally obligated.

    The one exception I have to this rule would be if that country is under serious problems. Look "first world" doesn't automatically mean that life if perfect their. Take the EU for example. Greece is under a terrible debt and corruption problem correct me if Im wrong.

    Plus not all refugees are from a 3rd world country (as much as I dislike using such outdated terms like first world and third world).

    Overall as much as I think about it their is no moral reason to deny refugees. Yet if you take economics, politics et cetera into perspective I could some what understand.

    But morally I cant see why not accept them.

  • We need to take our own people as our own priority first

    I'm saying this because as a Zimbabwean country we already have street kids out there in the streets and we have unemployed people without any money and then all of a sudden we should allow refugees into our country...I say that we should first trivet for a better Living for citizens than refugees

  • Of course they should

    Imagine you are living in a country under a viscous civil war (southern Somalia and Syria would make good examples)

    Yet your country is next to a little more prosperous nation. You and your family flee the country with the most you could carry and head off.

    Theirs a reason why their called "refugees"
    They are suffering in their country and their last choice is to flee. Why not accept them?

    I say you should be morally obligated.

    The one exception I have to this rule would be if that country is under serious problems. Look "first world" doesn't automatically mean that life if perfect their. Take the EU for example. Greece is under a terrible debt and corruption problem correct me if Im wrong.

    Plus not all refugees are from a 3rd world country (as much as I dislike using such outdated terms like first world and third world).

    Overall as much as I think about it their is no moral reason to deny refugees. Yet if you take economics, politics et cetera into perspective I could some what understand.

    But morally I cant see why not accept them.

  • First world countries have a moral obligation to accept refugees.

    The refugees are the same as everyone else except the fact that they have been forced to leave their homes to escape war persecution. Refugees have human rights that state that they are allowed freedom no matter what colour, race, religion or political beliefs. The war that the are escaping from is not their fault so why should they be forced to stay there and live the life that the government reinstated. If you were in their situation would you stay there?

    I believe they are allowed to be in any country that secures their safety.

  • The 1st world countries should accept refugees

    I think that when someone wants to have the sun instead of bombs above his head the countries with enough wealth (especially the ones in Europe) must help him. Unfortunately, the refugee issue can only be solved through European cooperation, which means funding the countries in debt (like Greece) so that they can offer humanitarian aid to those people. In addition, we must not forget the human right and the refugee right issue. Of course, refugees and illegal immigrants must be segregated during the recognition process and dealt with depending on their status.

  • They need help

    Put yourself in their shoes....... Your house, your village, your life has be destroyed. Living in terror with need of humanitarian assistance while constant bombings leave you isolated. You, like the Syrians refugees would want to go to a first world country where you can be safe with your family.

  • We are all humans and have to accept each others like brothers and sisters

    Lets think a bit; we are humans, we live in a country, we share the same planet, some of us share cities; we are a big family, we should do this (accepting refugees) voluntarily.
    WE ARE ALL HUMANS WE SHOULD ACCEPT EACH OTHER AND SHOULD LOVE TO BE TOGETHER LIKE BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

  • Yes yes yes

    The counterargument of saying "no countries should not be obligated to accept refugees because some of them may be with ISIS" is a terrible claim. All the questioning and interrogating that goes on with all the refugees, terrorists will be recognized. Also, first world countries should have a moral obligation to accept refugees because they have the money to transport these refugees to their countries. (Also refugees are very dedicated to starting a new, successful life that they will help the economy of the country they enter).

  • Terrorism from ISIS

    It is obvious that some of these people re good people, but the way that ISIS has terrorized many places around the world, it would not be outrageous for them to slip a few members in with the mainstream of refugees. People say that we could check all of the identification of the refugees, but people can fake an id or passport just as easy as committing a murder. While it is true that many of these people do in fact have a need and legitimate reason to enter the us, but many areas where these refugees would go, as well as a hot spot for terrorism, are very overpopulated. Places like NYC never do not have a ton of traffic and crowded subway systems. There are many people who are worried about this who would say any refugee is a terrorist, and that is where it gets dangerous for the refugees. The will most likely be discriminated, called terrorists, and in some cases, maybe even killed. They are trying to avoid this and I hate to say it, but America is not all that friendly to these kinds of people, even though we are pretty much all the same in that they were created equal, and have unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness

  • Morally good but not morally obligated

    There is a difference between a moral good and a moral must. Is it good for a first world country to accept refugees? Assuming they're capable of supporting the refugees yes it is morally good. Is it a moral must? No it's not. Not under any circumstances is a country required to let in refugees. The country ougt to do good for the people in its own borders. People who don't live in the country are not part of the country's responsibility. Therefore, it is morally good but not morally obligatory.

  • Nope Nope Nope

    Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope Nope

  • Since when did American Immigration Policy become accepting immigrants at the expense of U.S. National Security

    When did it become the responsibility of the U.S. to take care of these refugees? Clearly, ISIL is using Europe's open borders to smuggle its operatives over. It will do the same with the United States. Our job and our allies' job is to combat radical terrorism at home and in the Middle East so these moderate Muslims can live in their countries of origin.

  • No we can help them without taking them in.

    There are so many great organizations such as UNICEF, FINCA, International Children's Fund. We can just donate money, or even our time to those organizations to help out. I think that that would help in many more ways than taking them into our country. Taking them in could just cause more problems

  • Countries should not put their main focus on refugees

    Cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz cuz

  • No we dont

    We really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really don't

  • We have enough of our own problems

    Out first priority should be with our own country before we take care of others! We are in not position to take on any other burdens ! We are also fighting a war on terror ! We can't take chance with terrorists infiltrating with the refugees ! I would rather be safe than sorry ! You can't be too careful !

  • We do not.

    It's a simple as we do not who they are not their intentions. Terrorists have ADMITTED they will infiltrate our beautiful country through the refugee program. People wonder why they would do that as opposed to hopping the border. Well if they do that, there's a higher chance of getting caught! I love our country, and I wish to keep it safe.

  • Governments should still prioritize their citizens over foreigners

    Although it may prove to be beneficial in the future--a little stretch though since the country at war will take years before getting back on their own feet--in terms of solidarity and assistance, he safety of the people is their greatest priority. Not only do you not know the intentions of the people, but you also do not know what illnesses and such they bring.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.