Developed Nations have a Moral Obligation to accept Refugees

Round I- Con provides definitions and opening arguments. Pro provides opening arguments and refutes cons assertions Round 2- Con refutes arguments of pro and introduces new assertions. Pro refutes new con arguments and brings up new points. Round 3- The debators weigh the debate + final refutations. NO new arguments. We do what we must and what we can. But to ask for more food than room on the plate is not only foolish but counter-productive. Darwinian theory has proved that only the strong survive, a sad but indisputable law of nature. We must provide enough for ourselves before we lend aid to others; to do otherwise will only result in mutual catastrophe for all parties involved. Hello, my name is Forever23 , I am the first speaker of the opposition team and I am here upon this platform to bring forth my premise which is that Developed countries should not have moral obligations to accept refugees. My ensuing roadmap will include first defining this debate, abrogating my opponents points and then stating 3 of our own points. Developed countries have post-industrial economies, meaning the service sector provides more wealth than the industrial sector. Moral Obligations - duty one owes based on the moral grounds... Refugee - a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. Al terms are from Webster Dictionary. My first assertion Morally good, but not morally obligated.There is a difference between a moral good and a moral must. Is it good for a developed country to accept refugees? Assuming they're capable of supporting the refugees yes it is morally good. Is it a moral must? No it's not. Not under any circumstances is a country required to let in refugees. The country ought to do good for the people in its own borders. People who don't live in the country are not part of the country's responsibility. Therefore, it is morally good but not morally obligatory. Many countries open their doors for refugees not based on obligation. According to CNN.com Sweden joins Germany for example in demonstrating a high standard of responsibility in the refugee crisis. In the 1990s, Sweden accepted 84,000 refugees from the Balkans."We accept that every person has a right to seek asylum," Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Margot Wallstrom said. "This also puts the European solidarity to a test. I think it's important that we signal being a community that rests on common values of democracy and defense of human rights." on another hand Denmark's anti-immigrant tactics have been target The Danish government spent 30,000 euros on an advertising campaign in major Lebanese newspapers discouraging migration to Denmark. The ads touch upon all of the difficulties of assimilating in Denmark: Newcomers must learn the language, those granted permanent residency cannot bring their families over for one year, and welfare benefits for refugees have been slashed by 50 percent. All countries should do what they can to help, but they are not morally obligated in any way. Obligations may negatively affect not only own citizens but refugees themselves. As long as the world is divided into countries, the only obligation the governments should have is to their own citizens. This is why countries were formed in the first place, it was to protect and to care for the people living inside the borders. By opening national borders to millions of refugees, we are undermining the world order as it has existed for thousands of years. Our second assertion Has has a high potential end up in causing harm to nation citizens.A single refugee family could be absorbed very easily. The entire population of Syria could not be absorbed easily at all. The number of refugees we are talking about lies somewhere between these two extremes. So the question is whether or not these refugees would place an undue strain on the infrastructure and logistical systems that keep Europe fed and functioning. There should be a formula, based on a number of factors such as population, resources, culture and such in order to make sure each country takes in a proportional share, as some countries which neighbor war zones are overwhelmed. Margot Wallstr"m, Sweden"s Social Democratic foreign minister, declared this week that the refugee flow in her country, with its current population of 9.8 million, was enormous: "We cannot maintain a system where perhaps 190,000 people will arrive every year " in the long run, our system will collapse. And that welcome is not going to receive popular support."There was a wide a wide discussion on CNBC about "lifeboat ethics" it argues that wealthy nations, just like lifeboats, have limited capacity and that welcoming additional people would sink the boat. Our third assertion Is that it takes away from available resources from poor and disadvantaged families."Poverty" defined as an economic condition of lacking both money and basic necessities needed to successfully live, such as food, water, education, healthcare, and shelter. Developed countries unfortunately does not mean that they do not have people who live under poverty line. According to Central Intelligence Agency over 12,5 millions people live below poverty line in Germany, 46,5 millions in USA. Denmark for example hold 2-nd place by the lowest number of people living under poverty line, and it still has 6%. The developed countries budgets are not something that can be used without limits. The developed countries first responsibility is to its own citizens who are living in poverty. By caring for the refugees first before their own citizens in need, the developed countries" governments risk bringing social unrest and even rioting to their own societies, making their very own countries unsafe to live in. WE are not saying that Developed countries should not take refugees, they should if they can, but they definitely should not be morally obligated to do that. Please vote for the opposition side.