1. Objection: defining a refugee should not be done based on capacity, deliberating who should be granted refuge can be done on capacity but not who is classed as a refugee
2. historical argument 1 is that states have no right to control resources they procured wrongly
2.1. many wealthy countries wrongly procured their resources and therefore they dont have the right to control who is allowed to enter and access their resources
2.1.1. South Africa forced local populations to leave
2.2. open borders arguement; if they forced people to leave when they percured the land then they have no right to refuse poeple entrance therefore refugees should be allowed to enter to gain refuge or to just be a student
2.2.1. some object saying that the residents of the state today arent the ones who forced the local opulations to leave and furthermore closing states has increased the wellfare of those nations so they should be allowed to have closed borders and deny entrance to some migrants as a form of protection
2.2.1.1. some argue this protection is a protection of their culture
3. only those fleeing persecution for being members of a group e.g. religous/ gender/ ethincity
3.1. geneva convention 1951 defined refugee as those fleeing their country for to escape persecution
3.1.1. those fleeing persecution are entitled to asylum in the country they flee to, economic migrants however, are not
3.1.1.1. Objection: the presence of injustice is what justifies the privileging of refugees but this is morally implausible as poverty is not a natural missfortune; unjust human actions play an important role in and therefore they have been wronged too, even if it is not being wronged as a direct act of violence; colonialism and cold war influencing unffair trade agreements that still affect third world countries today is a key injustice that isnt being considered in this argument
3.1.1.1.1. and even if poverty were a missfortune it still makes no sense to only assist victims of injustice
3.2. Oberman says this is unjustly narrow
3.3. Edwards suggests that bluring the distinction between refugee and ecnomic migrant takes away from the fact that refugees require legal protection and undermines their support which economic migrants dont need
3.3.1. Edwards suggests the distinction is also necessary because economic agents are not under the direct threat of persecution or death
4. Asylum should be granted to those in need who we are not helping in another way, even if we could; including the extremely poor (Obermans claim)
4.1. this suggests the first premise of Lister and Millers claim untrue as we ought to provide asylum to anyone we arent helping even if we could help in another way.
4.1.1. if those who could be helped by being sent resources aren't being helped then they ought be be entitled to asylum. if a child were drowning and someone didn't save them because they could have called someone else to save them but they didn't it would not be justified. The same applies with economic migrants; if they are not being helped then they have a right to seek care.
4.1.1.1. N in Ugnada was deported from the UK on the grounds that they could have sent HIV treatment that she could not access in Uganda out there; however they did not send this treatment out there therefore her life was t risk to the same degree as a migrant fleeing violence
4.2. if protection has been widened for war refugees then why cant it include the poor?
4.2.1. some might suggest its because recieving countries can only accomodate a relatively low number of people; refugees millions whereas if those in extreme poverty seeeking asylum were included in this distiction they would be billions which there wouldnt be capacity to accomidate
4.2.1.1. REsponse: just because they lack the capacity to accomodate so many people does not ean their protection should be limited; everyone in dire need of protection has the claim to it.
4.2.1.1.1. hospitals have limited care but it doesnt meant the limit their care only to those who are assulted nor would society only help a child out of a well if she were pushed; if the need for protection is there it should be fulfilled
4.3. a rational asylum system would offer care to those who are most in need irrespective of whether they are refugees or economic migrants
4.3.1. if the hardships are of equal severity they should offer the same protection
4.4. the distinction doesn't make moral sense; if people need to migrate for their their basic rights it shouldn't matter whether the reasoning is poverty or persecution
4.5. conclusion: ther is no true relevant distinction between refugees and ecnomic migrants therefore those fleeing war shuold not be thought those due to higher protection to those fleeing poverty. the crisis of refugees and ecnomic migrants requires a humane reponse, making distinctions to who is a refugee just makes this harder therefore anyone who needs the protections and care should be condidered entitled to refuge; those who need it most should be granted it first
5. historical argument 2: if we have caused the harm then we have repairative duty to fix it or counteract the harm we have caused (Souler 2014)
5.1. most wealthy countries have contribted to humanitarian crisis today and therefore they have a moral duty to help those who are suffering as a result now; this includes those who are extremely poor and in poverty
5.1.1. objection: those who caused the humanitarian crisis are dead now so those benefitting from the western world not are not responsible
5.1.1.1. response: even if we didn't engage in it, the fact we benefit from it today makes us liable to help them as we shouldn't continue benefitting from past wrongs while others are suffering; they should be allowed to seek asylum
5.1.1.2. colonialism and the cold war enforcing unfair trade agreements and the effects and post colonial links are still there such as coco beans/ coffee beans/ sugar; its all exploitation of third world countries therefore if they seek asylum we have a moral obligation to accept them or provide other ways of obtaining security
6. when granting refuge you shouldn't prioritise the most wronged but rather the most in need, therefore anyone fleeing violence (Oberman claim but not all his argument)
6.1. severity of need is what matters when granting asylum
6.1.1. asylum should be assigned in the same way as hospitals; whoever is the most in need. hospitals wouldn't only treat those who have been attacked, or refuse someone treatment if they come in with a broken leg but they fell rather then had been pushed over due to membership of a group
6.1.2. Objection: those who most severly need treatment also isnt necessarily the best way to grant refuge; a 98 year old with cancer may be the most desperate for treatment over a 23 year old who is being detained the rest of his life for his membership of an ethinic group and political activism
6.2. international definition of a refugee is wrong and states should not only have to accept those fleeing persecution
6.2.1. Kareem fled his country in 2004 because the US bombed his university leaving him severely indured and almost killed; this case is more severe then Gatluak's case and therefore should have been treated with priority. technically he is non entitled to asylum as he was not wronged for being a memebr of a specific group.
6.2.2. Lister (2013) and Miller (2016) suggest that those should be granted asylum who cannot be helped in their own country another way, e.g. via providing extra resources
6.2.2.1. as you cant escape violence through extra resources, asylum should be granted to those fleeing any kind of violence as their need is the most sever
6.2.2.2. Objection; some refugees can be safely returned home; the indian intervention in Bangladesh alowed for safe return to their country similarly NATO intervention in Koscovo; it may not be successful everytime and Iraq and Syria is probably going to prove that but it doesnt meant that its not possible so this shouldnt be applied (Oberman) therefore asylum isnt the only way refugees can be helped
6.2.2.3. the same applies for refugee help within their homes; poverty is hard to tackle and there is no easy solution; providing resources doesn't stop these issues and aid often fails due to the weak political institutions within the country and also due to corruption domestically therefore some may still need to migrate to satisfy basic rights. this is another example of government failing to protect its people which is a reason justifying aylum for refugees but the same applies with poverty
6.2.2.4. its irrelevant whether they can be assisted in their own country what matters is whether they will actually be assisted; if a patient can be treated at home then it is reasonable to do so but if they are denied treatement on the grounds that its possible but arent actually treated this is morally wrong
7. humanitarian argument; historical arguments aren't enough, as humans we owe basic assistance to each other (Gibney 2004)
7.1. if an individual needs basic assistance we ought to grant it to them even if we dont owe it to them
7.1.1. if you saw someone hit by a car even if it wasnt your fault you still have a moral obligation to help them as someones life invokes moderate costs in the scheme of things
7.1.2. granting refugees asylum only invokes moderate costs
7.1.3. child drowning analogy; if you see a child drowning and you are wearing a £1000 suit that gets ruined by doing so, the suit is a moderate cost in relation to the value of the life saved. if this happens every day then you become less obliged to save the child every time but you could be expected to save 10 children in a month or whatever the limit of the moderate costs
7.1.3.1. therefore we ought to provide asylum to those in need whoever they are; regardles s of whether they have been wronged or just are in need beucase the cost is relatively moderate
7.1.3.1.1. this is an empiracle claim and contrivercial but given the size and wealth of the richest countries, lots of them could be taken on and the cost would be moderate in relation to their wealth and asylum should be granted to as many people within the moderate cost as possible
7.1.3.1.2. the cost is only moderate becuase firstly, if all states acepted shared responsibiliyt then no state would have to bear more then moderate cost and secondly the cost is only moderate long term becuase as refugees intergrate into society they intergrate into the economic cycle and they give back to the country they have entered so the cost diminishes.
7.2. objection: states lack the capacity to accept so many individals which is why refugees are prioritised
7.2.1. response: we should prioritise all those who are unable to access basic rights and should prioritise those whose rights are most violated eg the right to live to a certain age and the right to be free from detention