The Refugee Crisis -A Moral Crisis?……………………….…………………Page

POLITICS The Refugee Crisis: A Moral Crisis?

Every minute, thirty people around the world are newly displaced. This shocking statistic shows why the refugee crisis has long been a topic for debate and is always in the headlines. Once we know the context around why people leave their birth country and the ethical arguments within this issue, we can begin to understand why it happens and what we can do to help.

Why do people move in the first place?

When fleeing their country, refugees often have to travel over very difficult territory, on both land and sea, in order to reach a safe and welcoming country. The desperate plight of people seeking safety in Europe continues, and the UN reports that more than 95,000 refugees reached Europe by sea in 2020. Whilst the number has fallen since 2015, the relative number of casualties has increased. In 2020, 1,401 people died or went missing whilst trying to enter Europe. So what are they fleeing from, and how desperate is the situation if they are willing to put their lives on the line? According to the UN, more than a million refugees had crossed into Europe by the end of 2015 and the majority were fleeing Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Taking Syria as an example, the civil war there has been one of the biggest drivers of the global refugee crisis which has left 68.5 million people displaced. The conflict lasted ten years and is possibly the worst humanitarian crisis of our time. Over 500,000 people were killed and 80% are now living in poverty, whilst food insecurity levels are at an all time high. The Afghanistan crisis is another which has affected the global immigration situation, especially more recently last year. The situation in Afghanistan is highly complex with decades of conflict that have taken a terrible toll on Afghan people, resulting in many deaths and pushing families further into poverty. Drought and coronavirus have added even greater problems for vulnerable families struggling with hunger and healthcare. In late 2021, US troops and allies pulled out of the country for the first time since they entered in 2001. In a miscalculation of epic proportions, they overestimated the ability of the patchwork Afghan government to face threats on their own and the Taliban soon resurfaced to take hold of the country. This led to the horrific images we saw of refugees crowding the airports, being evacuated by many countries, including the UK, and even holding onto planes as they took off. More than 123,000 were evacuated by US forces and partners after the Taliban took control of the capital (Kabul) on the 14th August last year, but it is unclear how many of them are Afghan nationals. The US said that they had flown nearly 80,000 civilians out and of those, 5,500 were Americans and more than 73,500 were either Afghans or other foreign nationals. The UK Ministry for Defence said that it had flown out more than 15,000 people and 8,000 of them were Afghans. Whilst the UN urged surrounding countries to keep their borders open and to accept refugees, many have said they cannot hold anymore or are keeping their borders closed due to the security risk of the Taliban. Even if they did stay open, the Taliban now control every main exit and entrance to the country and are only allowing traders with the appropriate paperwork to leave. It is clear that the main reason for the refugee crisis is political turmoil within countries but other reasons involve drought, starvation, healthcare and persecution of minorities (including women and members of the LGBTQ+ community).

What are the ethical arguments?

Almost all moral and political philosophers, regardless of their general stance on immigration controls, argue that developed nations have a duty to grant asylum; people shouldn’t be turned back to countries where they would face persecution or severe human rights violations. Yet there are a number of controversial ethical issues raised by the displacement of people. For example, there is a school of thought that believes eventually, the internal conflict in these countries will end but many of the inhabitants will have left and will not be there to aid the vital reconstruction efforts of their birthplace. Before the war, Syria had 31,000 doctors, but this number is believed to have halved, with many now treating patients in Europe. Iraq complains of a serious ‘brain drain’ as its skilled young professionals seek work in the West. Some think that rather than re-settling refugees in Europe, we should be investing in the long term futures of those places they wish to leave by working for peace and security there as well as making training, education and work opportunities more accessible.

Another reason why some believe we should limit immigration is that it is unpopular with voters and so is a recruitment call for populists. Welcoming more refugees is a gift for the demagogues challenging Europe’s democratic order. As an example, voter unease in Germany has fueled support for the anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany (AfD) and they have had significant successes in recent elections, threatening to become the biggest opposition party. At a time when Europe’s democracy is facing grave dangers, it is argued that the refugee influx may have to be curbed to avoid a lurch to the farright. A final ethical issue, according to some, is that Europe is already full and there are simply too many people for our social services, housing departments, health systems and schools to cope with. Because the influx is concentrated in certain regions, this creates local tensions and strains within communities, and the absence of a pragmatic redistribution scheme along with the unwillingness of refugees to relocate means some nations are unfairly burdened, Germany and Sweden in particular. This all places undue pressure on European solidarity, something which is already under threat because of Brexit and parties in other countries becoming more euro-hostile. Would it be foolish to add to those strains by allowing more refugees?

However, there are also many positives about accepting refugees into our countries and many think these advantages outweigh the disadvantages, as well as supporting the consensus that we shouldn’t send people back to persecution and suffering.

There is a philosophical view that Western ideals of unity, democracy and basic rights are values that matter and are core to the heart of European civilisation. Compassion, solidarity, respect for minorities and the vulnerable and the application of the rule of law are vital for our way of life and to not allow those who need it to seek refuge within our borders goes against everything we stand for. The Geneva Convention on Refugees, as well as other international agreements, clearly commit governments to protect refugees; violation of such commitments would undermine international law and respect for a rules -based world order. Failure to help families threatened by war, oppression and genocide would be catastrophic to our democratic way of life.

In addition, it is a dangerous illusion to think that shutting out refugees will bolster Europe’s security as it is suggested that closing the door to those fleeing violence will only serve to increase antagonism, alienation and anti-Western sentiment. Abandoning refugees could allow resentment to fester which would leave them vulnerable to becoming prey for extremist recruiters. Ensuring their integration into European society could help reduce this risk and allow them to develop an understanding of our shared values. Whilst it may be true that a small number of people smuggled in as refugees might have been radicalised, this isn’t the case for the majority and an over-reaction would be counter-productive. Finally, economics and demographics is another issue to consider when it comes to this topic. In 1960, nations now making up the European Union had an average birth -rate of 2.6. In 2014, the rate had dropped to 1.4 children per woman, well below the 2.1 needed to keep the population from decline. Europe’s native population is shrinking fast. That means a declining workforce has to support more older people. Proposed solutions include persuading women to have more children, raising the retirement age and increasing taxes to pay for pensions. These options may cause significant opposition in public opinion and so one of the only other alternatives is to bring in more migrants. Refugees arriving in Europe are mostly young, willing to do work shunned by natives, and equipped with skills the job market needs. History is full of refugees making successful contributions to their host countries, from waves of Europeans fleeing to the US to escape persecution, to Ugandan Asians in the UK. When the latter group fled to Britain in the 1970s, the reaction from many resembled today’s anti-refugee hysteria. Forty years later, a former teenage refugee turned businessman and legislator told parliament how British people with South Asian roots make up 2.5% of the UK population but contribute 10% of its national output.

We are very lucky to be born in such a developed, industrialised and relatively peaceful country. However, this debate leaves many questions unanswered. Why should people be punished just because they drew the short straw in terms of where they were born? Why should we attempt to stop people fleeing humanitarian disasters and making a better life for themselves? Would this be as big of an issue if there were no conventional borders and separate countries - if we were all one global nation? But that’s for another time.