Clovis Institute

Europe's place in the world

The Case in Favour of Refugees

From Ruins to RefugeesThe Case In Favour of Refugees

We have written articles on how immigrants are not required to fill European jobs. A recent article discusses how they are a burden on the taxpayer. Multiple articles cover the topic that Europe’s demographics are changing.

All articles that say there really is no economic benefit of pulling immigrants into Europe. The other side of the topic is however that of helping people in need. Yes, these people request asylum. They are fleeing warzones, political prosecution, or other unsafe scenarios. So, it would definitely help these individuals to live their lives in safe, rich Europe instead. It would be very altruistic, to let them in.

Altruism – from ruins to refugees

Let’s agree that helping people is generally a good thing. If we are able to help a refugee, why wouldn’t we? Why shouldn’t we? The logic is simple, let someone from a country in a state of war come to your country that is safe. Afterwards, both of you can live happily together in the new country. So, let’s assume helping people in warzones is our goal. That is a great goal. But, before we conclude that this means we need to take in more immigrants… Is that correct?

Optimizing our reach

If our goal is helping people, we want to help as many people as we can. However, the funds available for this are limited. Let’s be honest, even though we want to help, nobody wants to sell their house and give all their money to charity. So, we want to use the money we have available in the best way possible. How do we do that?

Analyzing the costs

To be able to optimize, we need to know the costs for the different options. Allowing migrants to come to Europe is one option, with certain costs involved. Another option is local refugee camps, also with costs. Maybe even create a safezone within the warzone by UN intervention? These camps might be less comfortable, but they are safe. Let’s remember, our goal is not to provide luxury to people, it is prevent people from being killed.

To decide which option is best, we need to understand the costs for both. Which option is cheaper? The cheaper option allows our limited funds to be used in a way to help more people. Realistically, there may be no option that allows us to help everyone that suffers in the world. More is better.

What is missing is a debate discussing the costs involved of migrants coming to Europe. Politicians even claim that it is beneficial for our treasuries, but that appears to be a lie (or at least ignorance).

What if local refugee camps are cheaper?

Given a scenario that there are indeed costs involved for European states with regards to accepting migrants, these costs may be more than the costs for local refugee camps. If that is the case, local refugee camps will allow us to save more people. Funding can provide better shelter, food, and overall safety for more people.

Life for those saved will not be as nice as living in Europe on benefits, but it will allow us to reach more people.

Do we really want to help?

Apart from refugees, real help would start at the source. If we don’t want people having to flee warzones, we should not create warzones. Libya was destabilized after western air superiority aided the rebels. Libya is still in a state of anarchy, and even slavery resurfaced. Syrian rebels received western support and funding, leading to an ongoing civil war. Iraq and Afghanistan were not warzones until the United States invaded them.

Perhaps politicians should include the faith of the local populations in their decision before they start bombing a country. How will we care for the refugees? Should we really bomb this country? Is it worth our greater goals?

The question of ‘should we help people’ goes far beyond the moment where they arrive on the border. It is as if we do not recognize the problems we create, until they are standing on our doorstep. And suddenly then, when the drama becomes visible to us, does our compassion grow and we feel we should help.

1 Comment

  1. Important difference:
    -Immigrant who freely choose to settle or reside in foreign country, especially as permanent resident or naturalized citizen, to take up employment as a migrant worker or temporarily as a foreign worker
    -A refugee is a displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and who cannot return home safely

    willingness to do things that bring advantages to others, even if it results in disadvantage for yourself or the attitude of caring about others and doing acts that help them although you do not get anything by doing those acts

    I honestly think that debate about this topic is important. I believe that helping others is a noble thing but also has limits and is a free choice. The authorities of the country have to protect their own population first. I think that granting asylum because of political or religion beliefs is archaic thing because is a matter of choice; nationality and ethnicity or social group is not. From the other hand I do not agree with using increased number of people who seek asylum and peace as a tool to increase country income. Finally, as any system the one we are talking about is not perfect and surely is being taken advantage of.

    What we need – a Golden mean:
    SOCRATES: That any kind of mixture that does not in some way or other possess measure of the nature of proportion will necessarily corrupt its ingredients and most of all itself. For there would be no blending in such a case at all but really an unconnected medley, the ruin of whatever happens to be contained in it.
    PROTARCHUS: Very true.
    SOCRATES: But now we notice that the force of the good has taken up refuge in an alliance with the nature of the beautiful. For measure and proportion manifest themselves in all areas of beauty and virtue.
    PROTARCHUS: Undeniably.
    SOCRATES: But we said that truth is also inclined along with them in our mixture?
    PROTARCHUS: Indeed.
    SOCRATES: Well, then, if we cannot capture the good in one form, we will have to take hold of it in a conjunction of three: beauty, proportion and truth. Let us affirm that these should by right be treated as a unity and be held responsible for what is in the mixture, for goodness is what makes the mixture good in itself.

Leave a Reply

© 2019 Clovis Institute

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑