While there is no legal obligation for a country to accept refugees, some might argue that there is a moral one. In general terms people should feel morally obligated to help others in need so why should the situation with refugees be any different?
When news outlets discuss refugees they tend to speak of their admittance into our country solely on the basis of national security. “Is it safe for our citizens if we let all these foreigners into the United States?” Rarely is the safety of the refugees questioned.
In an article written by a professor at Northeastern University, the discussion of the moral obligations to help refugees is discussed. The initial cause for the moral obligation to help refugees is in the knowledge that if they are not helped there is a large reason to believe that they will be killed.
The unfortunate reality is, this fact has not persuaded people that there is a real need to assistance. Instead, large Western countries will help to implement refugee camps in other countries or plan resettlements as long as it is not in their own country. The author of the article Serena Parekh mentions how these refugee camps are doing no good for the people that are supposedly seeking refuge in them.
Indeed, the situation is so bad in Jordan that people are choosing to return home to Syria rather than remain there. – Parekh
Refugees are choosing to live in a constant fear of death and violence rather than face what is supposed to be a safer place. The resources that the countries willing to host refugees have are no better than what the refugees already have access to. These countries that are primarily in the Global South need help on their own and require even more support to help the extra people that they are trying to help.
If the stronger Western countries were open to accepting more refugees themselves rather just providing resources, it would cut out the middle man and help even more people in need of assistance.