Should countries accept refugees?
Refugees: Moral obligation or hindrance to society? The refugee crisis is the fastest growing humanitarian crisis to date. Every minute, 24 people around the world are forced to flee their homes. That’s 34,000 people a day who leave everything behind in the hope of finding safety and a better tomorrow. Whilst the vast majority of refugees come from countries ravaged by internal conflict such as Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia the crisis is made a global dilemma due to countries varying acceptance of these refugees. This poses the question: are refugees beneficial or detrimental to a countries development? Furthermore, regardless of this, as a global community should we have a moral obligation to host these refugees, or is it their problem to solve and fend for themselves?
‘Moral Obligation: A duty which one owes, and which he/she is ought to perform, but which he/she is not legally bound to fulfil.’ Firstly, acceptance of refugees should be seen as a moral obligation. As members of a global organisation such as ‘The United Nations’ all member countries should accept the moral obligation to host refugees. The five permanent members of the united nations are China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia. Whilst these are all permanent members of the united nations, their refugee quotas are all vastly different. In my opinion each of member state should accept the same amount of refugees per thousand as the next member state. This way, the pressure of refugees can be alleviated from countries whom are taking on substantial amounts of refugees. Of the top 50 countries whom host refugees, only two are developed countries. These include: Malta and the United Arab Emirates.
Refugees are often viewed as an economic burden on countries, however this is not always the case. Acceptance of refugees should not only be seen as a moral obligation but as a benefit to a countries economical, cultural and social development. Refugees can improve a countries economy by adding to it’s workforce. A new study conducted by UC Davis with the United Nations World Food Program indicates that refugees receiving aid – especially in the form of cash – can give their host country’s economy a substantial boost. The study was carried out by examining the economic impact of three camps in Rwanda, housing refugees from the Congo. These camps acting essentially as a microcosm, for the wider world, and the effect these refugees have on Rwanda’s economy. In the two camps, the refugees received aid from the United Nations World Food Program in the form of cash, while in the third camp the refugees received the same value of aid but in donated food. “The findings of this study run contrary to the popular perception that refugees are helpless and dependent on food aid,” said J. Edward Taylor, the study’s lead author and a UC Davis professor of agricultural and resource economics. Furthermore, the notion that refugees are helpless and of no positive impact to their host country was proved wrong: “Our data support recent studies suggesting that although refugees have undergone forced migration and are often living in destitute conditions, they still are productive and can interact with their host country’s economy in positive ways,” Taylor said. In the two cash-aid camps each adult received an annual amount of $120 and $126 respectively. The researches found that each additional adult refugee in either of those two camps increased the annual income in the local area by $204 and $253, respectively. This was equivalent to 63 percent and 96 percent increases, created by each refugee in the two cash-aid camps, for the average per-capita income of Rwandan households neighbouring the camps. This is proof, that irrespective of welcoming refugees being a moral obligation, it does have some economic benefits too.
Furthermore, countries should be welcome refugees as it adds exponentially to their workforce. Whilst these refugees have been forced to flee their country of origin many of them hold very credible degrees and qualifications that can add to a country’s workforce. As seen in The United States of America. Google co-founder Sergey Brin was a child refugee from the Soviet-Union. Alphabet, Google’s parent company has a current market capitalisation of $553 Billion, being America’s second most valuable firm. WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum and PayPal co-founder Max Levchin were refugees from Ukraine. The late Andy Grove, who helped start and was later CEO of Intel, fled from communist Hungary. It a known fact that migrants engage in entrepreneurship at a much higher rate than natives, migrants are 15%of the US population, but make up 25% of refugees. The list goes on. If the likes of Sergey Brin and Max Levchin were denied entry from America, these multi-billion dollar companies would never have been founded. Ones’ origin and country’s political state does not define ones’ talent and ability to succeed. Hence why refugees should not be seen as a hinderance but a benefit, furthermore an asset to society. Developing countries not only socially and diversifying societies but contributing in an economic sense as well.
Accepting refugees is truly a win-win formula. Whilst refugees are often seen as a burden we have realised that they are actually welfare-enhancing assets. Regardless of their benefit to the host country however, is the empowerment the host country is instilling in these innocent, unsettled people; who have by no choice of their own been forced to flee their home and all they know. By accepting refugees the destination country are allowing them the most basic human right of all – to live. If Refugees are accepted willingly and openly by the destination country, refugees will not have to risk such dangerous journeys – consequently the death rate of refugees will be reduced. The refugee crisis is heightened by the treacherous journeys these refugees are partaking in. If these incognito journeys are eradicated via the destination countries organising safe transport of refugees, these dangerous ventures would not exist and the death rate would be reduced considerably.
On the contrary, refugees can struggle to assimilate into new cultures. This failure to assimilate can create enclaves. Consequently, these enclaves can lead to a clash of cultures and conflict. Generation Jihad is a phenomenon that has come about as a result of alienation of young muslim men. Nearly 250 people have been killed in Islamist terrorist attacks in France over the last two and a half years. European countries such as the UK are under a constant terrorist threat, many of these terrorists are citizens of these countries themselves, migrating to these countries to escape civil war in the middle-east only to become enraptured in social networking sites and recruited by the islamic state -remotely. A book called “Terror in France” by Gilles Kepel explores the alienation of Muslims in French society, and the direct correlation between this and terrorism. “The Islamophobia mantra and the victim mentality it reinforces makes it possible to rationalize a total rejection of France and a commitment to jihad by making a connection between unemployment, discrimination, and French republican values,” Kepel writes. Kepel fails to come to a resolution of how France can emerge from this dilemma. Book critic James Kirchick draws the conclusion that the third-generation jihad owes as much to the political breakdown in France as it does to the meltdown in the Middle East. Defeating this two-headed beast requires a new and comprehensive playbook: the West’s answer to The Global Islamic Resistance Call. That book has yet to be written. Essentially Kirchick is stating, acceptance of refugees from Syria and other country’s ravaged by cicvil war is only causing political breakdown; as seen in France.
Another problem with the open acceptance of refugees is risk of not being able to stop the in-flow. Once borders are opened to refugees, it will become much harder to turn them away. At the height of Europe’s migration crisis 2015-2016, German Chancellor Angela Merkel adopted an open borders policy that drew more than one million refugees into Germany in two years. Germany’s unemployment rate has fallen to a record low since the countries reunification in 1990, more immigrants were unemployed than native Germans – 13.6 % percent of immigrants having low paying jobs versus 6.2% of native Germans having low paying jobs. This is proof that in fact refugees, in the case of Germany opening their borders have not been beneficial nor added anything to the country’s economy.
The refugee crisis is an ongoing problem. The reality is, accepting refugees is not going to solve the entirety of the issue. Don't be a solution for the effect, be a solution for the cause. Since 2011, when the Syrian civil war began, there have been 470,000 deaths. Due to this many refugees undertake risky journeys towards Europe in hope for a new beginning. Only 10 percent of those who have fled the conflict since its beginning have found safety in Europe. Many are turned away, or killed during the treacherous journeys they risk their lives taking – for the slim chance of a prosperous future and a new beginning. First world countries, should instead of offering aid in the form of hosting refugees send troops into The Middle East to try diffuse the feud. These countries hosting these refugees are not solving the root of the issue. If first world countries keep welcoming in more refugees it will only cause a continued reliance. Thus, an ongoing, ever-present refugee crisis.
Whilst there are arguments for refugees being detrimental to a country such as causing cultural conflict in society and the inability to assimilate – resulting in alienation. Not to mention the underlying issue of the humanitarian refugee crisis not truly being solved by the hosting of refugees. If globally, we want to solve displacement of refugees we need to resolve the root of the problem- which is civil war. However, I strongly believe, based on evidence I have acquired from a number of sources, that refugees are overall beneficial for a country’s development, therefore countries should be more accepting of refugees. Refugees add to a country’s cultural diversity. This broadens a country’s range cuisine, festivals, religions and teaches us the ability to live in cohesion – a crucial skill in life. Refugees have also been proven to be an economic asset (contrary to popular belief) actually improving a countries economy. Refugees have also been proven to add to country’s workforce by providing the country with a new skill-set and also undertaking jobs that are not often popular. Furthermore, there are numerous examples of uber-successful entrepreneurs who were refugees, and displaced from their country of origin such as the founder of Google Sergey Brin; Google is now a multi-billion dollar company. It is crucial that as a global community, countries that are socially and economically apt take up the responsibility to host refugees. It is our moral obligation – regardless of our own personal benefit. The very fact in itself that we, as a host country are allowing these refugees a second chance at life justifies why countries should accept refugees.