Assignment:
Ethics and Human Rights
In the UN Convention on Refugees (1951) and Protocol (1967), Refugee is defined as someone who has:"well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."
We already read about and briefly covered the ideological, philosophical and ethical positions relating to the question of the rights of people (highlighting the difference between the liberal-cosmopolitan view and the liberal-communitarian view), and especially those who suffer. We are nonetheless left with the question of how to deal with refugees and other migrants. What do we as individuals or societies owe them, if anything? The problem can't be wished away. Whether we like it or not, refugees exist and there are spikes in migration patterns that occur throughout history. Sometimes these are carried out through legal channels, sometimes the law is changed in order to adjust to new circumstances, and sometimes migration happens outside of legal frameworks. People may cross the Mediterranean Sea from the Middle East and North Africa on small rubber boats and land on the shores of Europe (in Greece, Italy, or elsewhere). Others might pay smugglers or coyotes to get them across. Still others might walk on foot or by vehicle over borders that are not hermetically sealed. And finally some are able to even get across border walls and various surveillance systems that follow along state borders.
In short, refugees and migrants exist and will continue to exist. Despite a long history of agreements like the UN Convention on Refugees (1951/67), it appears that thousands of humans - at times hundreds of thousands and even tens of millions - still find themselves struggling to live a good life. Unless one is capable of turning a blind eye to the suffering of their fellow humans who seek some way to escape their plight, then there may be a moral imperative to consider what is to be done. How can we avoid creating refugees, and absent that, how ought and can we help? It's a perfectly reasonable question. The answers, however, are widely debated.
The UN Convention on Refugees offers a number of protections to refugees. Despite this, there are anxieties and concerns with refugees.
For our purposes, we will divide the refugee issue along 3 dimensions: Security, Economy, Culture.
Security
One of the anxieties regarding refugees is that they present a serious security issue. Sometimes this is put in the context of crime, other times in the context of terrorism.
1) Do refugees increase the crime rate in the US or another nation? Do they commit a disproportionate share of crime? Do immigrants? Find evidence from reliable/serious source if you can.
Is there a reason to expect refugees to commit disproportionate crime? What might those be?
2) Have any refugees been identified as perpetrators of terrorism in the US or Europe?
Is this an exception or a general trend?
3) Are there any security risks in not offering refugees asylum? Explain.
4) What is the best proposal(s) you might make to reduce risk on all accounts (i.e., crime, terror, and inaction)? What are the barriers to these proposals? Can they be overcome? How?
Economy
One of the anxieties surrounding refugees is that they are a drain on national/public resources. However, according to the Parker et. al. article, the case of Britain gives some reason to question the extent to which this anxiety reflects reality. As they explain:
"A recent MORI poll revealed that the British public hugely overestimates the amount of migrants Britain accepts each year: on average, respondents believed that Britain hosted nearly a quarter of the world's refugees when in fact the figure is less than 2%"
Furthermore:
"The perception that asylum-seekers are a drain on Britain's generous public resources is as common as it is misleading. In fact, asylum-seekers cannot claim mainstream benefits (they receive basic support from the National Asylum Support Service) and Britain is not the most generous in this regard. Ireland, Denmark, and Belgium are more generous. Moreover, asylum-seekers are actually not permitted to work for the first 6 months after their application date, so they have little choice but to claim benefits."
We know that in recent years, the European continent has seen a massive influx of refugees. Many are from Syria, and many from different parts in Africa or the Middle East.
1) Pick a country in Europe.
2) How many refugees have they accepted in recent years? What percentage of the population does this amount to? Be sure to cite your source.
3) How might the influx of refugees aid the economy of the receiving country? Can you find evidence for this?
4) How might the influx harm the economy of the receiving country? Can you find evidence for this?
Culture
One of the fears regarding refugees (or migrants in general) is that they would drastically change the culture.
1) Give an example of how refugee groups have changed culture in the history of the USA.
What are the costs and benefits of this change?
Should this change be addressed? How might you address this change if at all? What are the risks in addressing it this way?
2) Is the call to preserve culture simply a cover for prejudicial attitudes? If so, how? If not, how not?
Alternatively, is there a limit to how many migrants a state should accept? Why/how? Explain. How would you determine that limit?
What do your answers to all of the above question imply about the communitarian v. cosmopolitan debate? Is there agreement in your group on either of these or on alternative views/approaches? Explain.
Attachment:- Ethics and Human Rights.rar