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    Plus not all refugees are from a 3rd world country (as much as I dislike using such outdated terms like first world and third world).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

  • Yes, or our morals are hypocrisy

    We should accept refugees especially from countries we have exploited. This news of a caravan of migrants coming from Cental America is only suddenly news because of our immigration policies being a hot topic lately. The United States has exploited Central America for decades- we have contributed to the violent rule they are escaping.

  • Refugees are not the problem; our thinking is.

    One of the biggest problems behind the worldwide refugee crisis is our lack of understanding towards refugees. We look at refugees as aliens and outcasts rather than humans who seek refuge or asylum. The UNHCR defines a refugee as someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. In simpler words, a refugee isn't willing to leave their country, but instead is forced by circumstances to leave their country. Every minute, 20 people are forced to leave their country; with nowhere to go to and without any home to live in.

  • Refugees are not the problem; our thinking is.

    One of the biggest problems behind the worldwide refugee crisis is our lack of understanding towards refugees. We look at refugees as aliens and outcasts rather than humans who seek refuge or asylum. The UNHCR defines a refugee as someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. In simpler words, a refugee isn't willing to leave their country, but instead is forced by circumstances to leave their country. Every minute, 20 people are forced to leave their country; with nowhere to go to and without any home to live in.

  • In some ways yes.

    Countries which can should take in refugees because these people will come anyway they are that in need of a home, its better to have them legally rather than illegally. Some countries which don't have room would need to but Donald Trump should take off his ban of muslims so that America can help rather than watch the world suffer.

  • In some ways yes.

    Countries which can should take in refugees because these people will come anyway they are that in need of a home, its better to have them legally rather than illegally. Some countries which don't have room would need to but Donald Trump should take off his ban of muslims so that America can help rather than watch the world suffer.

  • Yes, we definitely should

    Refugees have gone through a lot already and if they are turned down at the borders of a country they might not even have the money or provisions to get anywhere safe where they will be accepted. Imagine you were a refugee fleeing your country to escape the terror there yet you are faced with a worse fate - No where to go. What would you? We should let refugees into our countries and help them feel safe and accepted.

  • Yes we should

    If we don't take in refugees they are going to die in their own country but if take them in they are at least going to live longer than if they were staying in their own country. So of course we should take in refugees that are fleeing their own country

  • 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.