Policies towards refugees fleeing oppression is a critical issue. At its root is the question of whether or not it is acceptable to turn away those who face violence and persecution in their home countries. A New Yorker article published in January 2018 found that “hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the U.S. may face violence and murder in their home countries.” Some American leaders have proposed relaxing immigration policies when it comes to refugees, but is such action really the answer to this problem?
German philosopher Immanuel Kant is known for his theory of the “categorical imperative,” which, generally, says that there are certain universal maxims that all people should reason are acceptable rules to live by. Using this framework, I would argue that we do have a moral responsibility to extend some form of aid to refugees seeking to escape turmoil in their home countries. The question remains, though, how? I want to focus on what the US can do.
Open borders is not the solution to this issue, nor is it an effective one. Lifting existing barriers to immigration would jeopardize our democracy, hinder the development of the countries from which refugees are coming, and pose further challenges to America’s working class. Instead of using immigration or asylum as the “emergency medicine” to all humanitarian issues, the government should address the problem at its root.
It is imperative for us to balance democracy and morality, as opposed to sacrificing one for the other. With the election of Donald Trump, a supporter of stricter policies towards potential immigrants and refugees, we have moved towards a more extreme side of the spectrum that ignores any moral obligation to help refugees.
Some argue that this is a symptom of “the tyranny of the majority”, wherein the democratically-elected leader and his supporters pursue policies that help themselves over the needs of smaller groups. The policy supported by the majority is more likely to side with their own interests than those of the minority — in this case, refugees. Still, although the voice of the minority should not be neglected, the will of the majority is still important.
Our government should create policies that not only reduce the suffering of refugees but also comply with the will of the majority of its people. This would mean focusing on remedying the issues that are causing a refugee crisis in a given country. For example, America can try to foster a ceasefire agreement in war-torn neighborhoods where civilians live, help establish more high-quality schools and hospitals in these areas and help prop up their economies.
Accepting all refugees for moral reasons would not ac- count for the many issues it would create. The moral question of fairness is also more complex than it might initially seem. While it is true that no one can decide their birthplace and the circumstances attached to it, there are many other determinants of success that also depend purely on luck, such as intelligence, appearance, health, and family background, all of which sometimes play an even bigger role in a person’s quality of life than their place of birth.
While it might satisfy some part of our national conscience to accept all refugees, it is hard to argue that their problems would be solved just by coming to America — outside of escaping the immediate threat of violence. By addressing the issues that are causing a refugee crisis, we can create a better outcome for all involved.
As much as we might hope for a world of peace and equality, accepting all refugees is not the means needed to achieve these goals. Instead, such a policy would only create more issues both domestically and internationally. In addressing the moral issues posed by this problem, countries should abandon a “stop-gap” approach and meet the crisis head on.
