Is denying asylum to refugees because you don't have the resources immoral?

Question

I'd really like to rack up some opinions on this. I'm currently being called a fascist because I refuse to allow refugees in my jurisdiction, be they from Ukraine or Syria, or Afghanistan. It's not racism, it's not "patriotism", we simply don't have the resources.

This summer alone we've had two floodings and a forest fire that ate a hill and displaced eleven families. We've got next to no resources to spare, and instead of sending reliefs, the regional government heckles us to raise our refugee quota. I'm from a leftwing party, and yet got called a xenophobe and a fascist for my refusals.

I have people - my citizens - living in tents right now. My deputy keeps asking for prefab houses for the displaced, got told we can get them only for the refugees. I'm pissed off to no end. We hung two banners on our town hall "This is not a concentration camp" and "Fire and water, we just need an earthquake and the locusts" in protest and got told our administration will be facing sanctions over this.

ShadezMcgee · Accepted Answer

I don't believe it is immoral, no. That is why I believe in immigration being done properly. If you have a country that grants asylum or is willing to bring people in via the immigration program, there needs to be a level of control to prevent influx. I get it, people want to come here to escape or have a better chance to increase their livelihoods for the better, you can't take all of them in.

A country should only take in what they can truly support without running the risk of overpopulation and too much demand for little supply. So for example, let's take a large city that has a population of about 300k people and it is considered a sanctuary city or one that has a good economy and standard of living. It will be very appealing to those who come to that area for those reasons. Limited risk of deportation and a chance for employment and housing. However that will also be the undoing. If that drew in 200k more people in the span of a year or so, now we have a problem because there will not be enough space or jobs to go around for everyone. This leads to increased demand for resources (healthcare, food, water, shelter), housing that may or may not be developed (that may be a reason you see a family of 15 cramped in a two bedroom apartment in extreme circumstances) and affordable for those looking to find shelter, not enough jobs to go around not taking into account quality of workers and whether they are qualified to do so.

This increases the demand for resources that will drive up costs for that whole city and the people already living there to help provide and pay for those needs to be met. This leads to more taxes and increased rates and standard of living, homeless increase, expansion, etc.

Does it suck when people want to come here for a better life and get turned down, deported or away through the immigration problem? Yes. Is it immoral? No. I view it as responsible and logical to have levels of control in place to prevent overpopulation draining resources faster and to keep it from creating a bigger problem from a logistical and economic standpoint. Letting empathy guide a decision that plays a major part for your country and its citizens wellbeing for a feel good moment is what will lead to a hard collapse down the line.

lightbulb27 · Accepted Answer

no,. i suspect there's a lot more resources around peoples homes/lives than we recognize, we just don't want to part with it. that is not true for some areas, and at a local admistrator level, there may be none. but individual people have space... if they so choose.

we could take in a few, quite a few. usa should open up, but it should be by goodwill with govt support, not requirement. requirement creates bad will.

request should go to churches, which goes to teh people to open up their homes.

the other angle on this is you can't compare what they have to what you have to offer. they have less where they are. These are long term placements as well... lets be realistic, this is not going to be over anytime soon and in a lot of cases, there's nothing to go back to, or it's more dangerous than before... once it calms down.

Puppystarfish23 · Accepted Answer

No unfortunately it's a dog eat dog world you have to look out for yourself. I'm aware I'm EXTREMELY privileged to be born in the UK but sometimes I don't think immigration is the the answer. Sometimes you have to fight for change even if that means laying your life's on the line. You can't expect your country to be great if you run away at any sign of hardship. This is way counties like mine are so powerful because as we didn't give up or run. Many men died for are country to be great. We might not be liked for it but you can't say the UK or the US has ever backed away from a fight when it came to bettering are country

menina · Accepted Answer

No, it's not immoral it's logic. You're just being honest. Also if they're refugees they're looking for better life conditions, so going to a place that has no resources for them is not a smart decision.

Another thing, whoever says that you're being racist is out of their minds. All the people you mentioned are white. A white person can't be racist against white people. The same valid for all races, you can't be racist against your "own" people.

Oigit · Answer

No it's not. People can be so willing to help refugees and a lot of them seem to not care about their own neighbors. It's like they would expect you to take food off your own table and starve your kids to feed refugees. Also like a lot of things these people are very quick to ask or demand others do something and give you list of excesses or reasons as to why they won't do it themselves. Making them extremely hypocritical.

Also I'll be honest I have an issue helping refugees and other people in general. Because for a time I was the person that many people come for help. But on the rare occasions where I asked other people to help me, no one was there to help me. Even people I had done a lot to help in the past where dust clouds. So after going through that one too many times, I don't help people, expect for family.

cth96190 · Answer

Immoral?

Hell no! Anyone who says that it is 'immoral' to defend your turf is too stupid to understand the natural order and that they have been indoctrinated into having a death wish.

If I was dictator, non-white 'refugees' would be shot on sight. Watch how quickly the problem would go away. They are not 'refugees'. They are invaders. If a group wishes to survive, they must defend their territory. If they do not defend their territory against 'the other', they will cease to exist.

“He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.” - Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, 1925)

Honesttguy · Answer

You eont own your country, you just happen to live there, government owns thst place and places rules, citizens are just sheep thst are farmed by farmer, sheep do not own farm they are there to benefit farmer. Farmer will help out other farmers to have positive image on global market. This should help you see, you own only yourself.

EtherealGuy · Answer

No. The only true and real solution to any refugee crisis is to fix their problems at home. Unless you're planning on taking in an entire damn population, which would inevitably result in total societal upheaval and a myriad of awful social issues related to integration.

jhl_x · Answer

No. Bringing in refugees to burn out money stolen from the population to finance services that barely serves them is an insult to a country's native population. A country should be able to handle itself before trying to help another.

Ευδεμονια · Answer

I sincerely think you’re the last person to be blamed. You did whatever you could, you’re in difficulties so it’s impossible for you to deploy helps and host refugees… it will be duty of other countries, that are richer and have less problems. I know refugees are people needing help and are not packages, but there are nations who have active part in the wars on our planet, should be their duty to care of consequences of that acting.

KatherineJ · Answer

No. What is immoral is our government not taking care of our own homeless problem. What is immoral is our government moving the undocumented to other areas of the country without providing the resources those communities will need in order to address the needs of these people that those communities might not be able to handle without help. Meanwhile, there are a lot of people trying to get here legally. They are left out, and that’s immoral.

Agape93 · Answer

Nope. If you did, even more people will have no resources, which is even more immoral.

Sixgunsound · Answer

It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to pack more people into a sinking life boat. This is the result of decisions made for political reasons by people who don’t have any experience with what they are deciding about.

Fuentes · Answer

Then it's time for them to find another country that does let them in. They might as well come to the US, since Biden is letting everyone in. But at the same time it looks like he's quietly doing what Trump did cause Border Patrol is back to hiring like crazy again.

Rania05 · Answer

It isn't, you don't have enough to share anyway. Don't give your people's necessities to them, you may feel bad but those people can work it out somehow. Immigration was never the answer to lack of economy in one's country.

brownna529 · Answer

The best thing to do is to try. Allow a certain amount of refugees into wherever you live and help them become a working part of your community. It's okay if you can't help everyone, but try to do everything you can to help the few you can

ibodi · Answer

It is like Niccolò Machiavelli's question but there are ways out maybe.

Like european's standard is high but there appear foods in second markets as British does. So you know the standard make cost as usual in Europe.

EmmaMary · Answer

No absolutely not... First and foremost  Charity Begins At Home , and always will. Period.

Jamie05rhs · Answer

You're not wrong at all. Your position is completely reasonable.

exitseven · Answer

Nope. te world is sinking and America is the lifeboat. like any lifeboat, if you overload it it will sink and everyone drowns.

midnightmoon05 · Answer

I don’t know what to say. It is very hard when you have no resources.  we want to help, but our govt. haven’t giving us info how to help.

Anonymous · Answer

Generally, it's a good idea to solve your own problems before taking on other peoples'.

FunkyMonkee · Answer

No, just logical. If 100 people said they wanted to live in your house, would you let them?

RealMarek · Answer

If the wealthy globalist neoliberals want refugees, they should house them in their gated communities. This will never happen!

Is denying asylum to refugees because you don't have the resources immoral?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Is denying asylum to refugees because you don't have the resources immoral?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.