2 opinions, 5 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
User voted Yes, all of them.
2 votes
Sep 28, 2015

Yes.

First of all, Europe has been a part of the problems that have driven refugees there in the first place. It was primarily Europe and America that instituted the modern international system. Insofar as the UN has been unwilling or unable to deal with the crises in Syria, Europe is in part to blame. ISIS was created in part because of the inability of some European countries to stop the US-led invasion of Iraq and the active participation of other countries, and in part because of other factors that stem back through globalization, colonialism, etc. European-owned firms did business in the region.

Every time these debates come up, people try to pretend that these refugees are aliens from another world, that it's just some coincidence that they're over there and the host country is over here. It's almost always false. We're all interconnected. We live in a world where people have trade, political and social connections. Why does that conveniently end when it comes time for humanitarian aid?

Second of all, we are responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions. If Europeans do not take in these migrants, many will have to go find somewhere else to live. That will necessitate the loss of additional resources, time in the marketplace, and will even cause deaths.

If Europe can take them in, they have a moral responsibility to do so. If we were talking about a medieval society that already had its own serious problems and could barely feed its own people, that'd be at least debatable. But here, Europeans could easily accommodate Syrian refugees.

We used to have a belief in hospitality, in xenia as the Greeks called it, that no traveler should go without a safe port. That idea remains just as valid and as noble now as it ever was. And it's even more important.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No, it's not a responsibility.
main reply
0 votes,
Nov 7, 2015

No they don't have a responsibility to take in refugees, you have an anti-Western group that is trying to impose its will on others. This is Muslims trying impost their view is Islam on others.And they have Bashar Assad a dictator who ruthlessly suppressed dissent, and most countries in the west have asked that he resigned, or are you really saying we should invade any country who might be abusing it's citizens? It's a really long list and are you willing to spill blood to "save" them, impose our will over them, doesn't that make us as bad as the people who we are trying to get rid of?

But really it's not our responsibility to correct another country, nor do we have the responsibility to take in those who flee rather then fight. Now if a country chooses to take in refugees, which many have despite the problems it's already causing, good for them, but it's not their or any other countries obligation to accept refugees.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes, all of them.
0 votes,
Nov 7, 2015

Let's say that you had Muslim refugees who wanted to immigrate, seek out work, and even change the culture of the places they came to. They did so peacefully, within legal mechanisms like free speech, freedom of the press, what have you.

So what?

Migrations of people have always happened. We're not talking about countries "taking in" refugees, like they are going to Syria and grabbing refugees out. We're talking about countries not kicking out refugees.

Any limit on the ability of people to immigrate is a limit on efficiency. It is a limit on the ability of workers to seek the labor that they will be the most productive at and thereby remunerated the best at. If we are going to have a global system based on free market capitalism, which I oppose but is the present arrangement, that has to cut both ways. Instead, we have a system where corporations in your country can do business with Syrians, trade with them, profit from a brutal and dictatorial regime, but workers are kept trapped. That's the real cause of the "race to the bottom": Capital being mobile and labor not being so.

Any Muslim refugees that violate the law or harm the rights of others should of course be dealt with properly, either deported, fined, jailed, given community service, or whatever punishment matches the crime. But the right to migration must be a human right.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No, it's not a responsibility.
0 votes,
Nov 8, 2015

Notice the question was about "refugees". Not migration.

"Migrations of people have always happened. We're not talking about countries "taking in" refugees,.."

We are talking about countries taking in refugees. But when you have migration, ie immigration, and each country sets what kind and how many people they wish to take in. The illusion of open boarders, is just that an illusion, no country could survive that, any country that did try (assuming the country has a successful economy) would soon find themselves flooded with low skilled workers. Straining the countries safety nets, straining the tax base, lowering the standard of living. Do countries need immigration? Yes but controlled immigration.

With refugees, a country takes in people who may not have any skills, who don't speak the local language, know the local customs, who will need massive amounts so support.

Now the US is restricting trade with Syria, although we all know that not all companies follow the rules, and in many third world countries the workers are lining up for the "low paying jobs" as they pay much more than the local economy will support. Is it right, maybe not, but just about every country goes through such a phase, low wages, little or no support. Now we've seen a lot of country losing out on the low wage jobs, as their economies become too strong and the wages go up and companies take their low skilled jobs to other countries.

"..migration must be a human right."

That isn't what the question is about, and most countries have immigration laws that do allow immigration.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes, all of them.
0 votes,
Nov 9, 2015

Richard: It's the same right at question. These are people fleeing violence, but they are also emphatically seeking work and are being denied by visas. That is wrong.

You clipping the context from my sentence is problematic because what you're ignoring is my point that the refugees are THERE, so what we're justifying is not proactively letting anyone in or seeking out new people (even though Europe's declining population would actually make it make sense even to do that) but simply NOT KICKING PEOPLE OUT. You have yet to explain how it is just to send people back to a hellhole that has been caused by a Western coalition's bombs and allowed to fester by an apathetic international community, especially given the right to emigrate for whatever reason.

The skills issue is not a justification in any instance: Unskilled labor has a right to seek out the best price for their wages too. You are literally making a classist argument. But the problem is that the refugees in this case in specific are NOT unskilled by and large: They are actually overwhelmingly skilled middle-class people.

What gives a country a right to "control" immigration at all? Should we talk about "speech, yes, but controlled free speech?" "Religion, yes, but controlled free religion?" A free market economy that limits immigration is slamming workers and empowering capital. It does not get any simpler. You are calling for hurting workers.

"That isn't what the question is about, and most countries have immigration laws that do allow immigration."

It is absolutely what it is about. Refugees are a subset of migrants. These people are seeking work. Denying their ability to do so, to settle where they please within the laws of where they settle (laws that must be just under human rights), is evil. The distinction between a refugee and a migrant is totally arbitrary.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No, it's not a responsibility.
0 votes,
Nov 9, 2015

I clipped the context so I didn't have to copy and paste the whole thing that what the .... mean. That there is more to the sentence and which sentence I'm responding too.

Every country has the right to deny visas to people the don't want to let in, and if there are already there and haven't turn themselves in to claim refugee status as soon as they enter the country, that person is breaking the law. And do you really want people who don't respect the law living in your country? Now you state send them back to a hellhole caused by the west, but when the "west" doesn't act we are told you should act, and when we do act, then we are told look at the mess you made do something. Damned if we do damned if we don't, but many of the problems are caused by locals so why should the west get involved at all? Should we have let Saddam run wild, let Bashar al-Assad run wild. After all a UN inquiry has found "massive evidence" that the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, is implicated in war crimes. Should we sit back and do nothing?

"What gives a country a right to "control" immigration at all? Should we talk about "speech, yes, but controlled free speech?" "Religion, yes, but controlled free religion?" ..."

We already have controlled speech, and controlled religion in fact we have controls on all rights. You can't for example slander someone, your church can't say we must kill others and help you plan attacks. So there is no such think as total freedom.

Refugees aren't migrants refugees are forced to leave their country because they are at risk of, or have experienced persecution. The concerns of refugees are human rights and safety, not economic advantage.

Migrants are looking for economic advantage, migrants are free to return home, most illegal aliens are looking for an economic advantage, the are not fleeing for safety.

So the distinction between a refugees and migrant isn't arbitrary, it a simple is a person fleeing war, persecution or looking for a job?

subscribe
0
User voted No, it's not a responsibility.
0 votes
Sep 28, 2015

Not only is it not their responsibility, but being forced to take in citizens by the controlling body of the EU should be made illegal.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: