The arguments surrounding countries taking in refugees are often hotly debated either for or against. The natives of many countries see only negatives arising from the situation and these usually incorporate financial impacts and the increased possibility of crime or terrorism.
Unlike migrants, refugees are people who have been forced to flee their native homeland. Most do not want to stay permanently in another country and they wait for the day when they can return to their homes. Some countries are, supposedly, legally obligated to accept refugees because they signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 protocol which amended the convention to include refugees not only from Europe but also around the world. The moral debate does though even touch these countries, particularly when they rescind the signed agreements as Hungary did when erecting a fence at the Serbian border to prevent refugee access.
The moral obligations however are where the national community steps in to help those from nations who are under threat. In itself this could be considered a moral obligation although founded in humanitarian legal concepts. The numbers of refugees are also often cited as a mitigating factor as to why refugees should not be accepted by host countries. However Turkey, a country similar in size to France, accepted around 2 million refugees in light of the problems experienced in Syria and Iraq.
It should perhaps be remembered that, for the majority of refugees, their search is only for a temporary sanctuary and when problems are resolved the influence is unlikely to negatively affect host populations in the long term.
KThompson
Comments: 0