On balance, Europe has a moral obligation to take in refugees from Iraq and Syria.

And without further ado, I shall begin. Contention 1 - It is worsening Europe's economic situationThe situation faced by Europe is a troubling one, and one of the worst cases comes with it's economic detriments. We are dealing with the biggest wave of refugees since the Second World War, and it is evident that despite the promising opportunities for refugees that settle in European countries, it proves too much of a burden. Greece, for example, is faced with an already collapsing economy even prior to the Arab Spring beginning, and they have been one of the worst hit countries from the influx of refugees due to the hundreds of thousands that travel through the sea route used to get there. [A] It is quite possible that Greece will fall even further due to the massive amounts of political instability, social unrest, costs faced with refugee camps inside the country and having to deal with thousands more arriving everyday unexpected. [B] If Greece is to cling on staying in the European Union, it has to receive substantual financial aid or aid through others taking the refugees off them. And so far, only Germany has done something of this scale, but it's financial contribution to Greece only worsens it's debt, and the situation in the EU in general. Not only that, but openly accepting more refugees will encourage EVEN MORE to make the hard journey across, most of which could die trying the journey or make the economic situation even worse. And this situation simply won't improve as most european countries will continue to refuse to accept refugees, which will now bring me to my second contention. Contention 2 - There is simply too much opposition to itIf we are talking about moral obligations, we need to consider the viewpoint of the general public themselves, and consider then what is right or wrong for their country to move forward. Angela Merkel, one of the most notable leaders to have contributed greatly to the refugee crisis, they have already taken in 950,000 refugees by 2016, and Merkel's support has drastically fallen as opposition groups have formed in germany causing civil unrest, and this drop in support could even prevent her from winning another election as Chancellor. What we must understand is it is because of this opposition that presents Europe with a different perspective of what is considered morally right. [C] [D] s://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686. ssl. cf2. rackcdn. com. .. ; alt="" />Based on this graph above, I can already present to you today exactly how clear a margin Germany has shown to accept pledges for refugees compared to virtually every other nation in the EU. So based on this, exactly how can we expect any government to take in a moral obligation to accept refugees when there is clear opposition by the public? Fears of terrorism, fears of cultural conflict, all of these play a part in the fears of the people which will prevent them from ever wanting to accept refugees into their society. So there is simply no way it is any european government's duty to accept more refugees based on a obligation for the refugees alone. [E]Contention 3 - It will lead to higher crime ratesCrime is one of the most evident problems faced by the refugee crisis, even more so as refugees are going virtually unchecked across the EU because of the vast quantity that are moving across, with the most notable 2015 Paris Attacks, it is clear that refugees pose a very real threat to national security. Because not just the case of terrorism has come up because of fears that terrorists may be hiding among the refugee population, but the refugee crisis has led to a very real increase in the rape epidemic across Europe. Especially in Germany, most rape cases on a single person are committed by adult males from Iraq and Syria. [F] Based on statistics like this alone, there should be a strong enough case to challenge whether the best course of action under a obligation is accepting more refugees, because with the very real crime rate, the government has it's own obligation to protect the citizens of it's country and to prevent further attacks from being carried out, and one measure to prevent that would be having their own obligation not to accept more refugees. Contention 4 - It should not have to be Europe's burden to have such an obligationIt is very clear to all of us that Europe is situated very close to the Middle East, and serves as the primary reason why refugees are fleeing to Europe. But let's get something very clear, refugees are fleeing to Germany because of the prospect of being in a developed nation where the chances of getting better health care and opportunities are increased compared to others, but based on this information, why isn't it the moral obligation of all developed countries in general to accept more refugees? In the US, 31 states, more than half of the total number of states are opposed to accepting refugees. [G] And merely because of the fact of USA's location compared to that of Europe, why should it still not be their moral obligation as much as Europe's to accept more refugees based on the morality of not allowing refugees to starve or die making long and dangerous journeys? It is very clear that many developed countries outside Europe are accepting minimal refugees in comparison to Europe, who is forced to deal with them passing their borders, and this is a very known fact, but based on this, it should not be seen as a morally right thing to do for nations aiming to promote international cooperation with each other to throw the burden to one group of nations. With such a problem, this burden should be placed on the UN in general and specifically, UNHCR to deal with this issue accordingly, and equally weighing out the burden between all the states involved in resolving the refugee crisis. Overall, I have started out by presenting many key problems faced with this current crisis and explaining them acceptably enough to make them very valid arguments, and it is based on these issues that make it outweigh the pros of accepting more refugees under a moral basis, and I will eagerly wait the affirmative's response for round three as he tackles these problems I have presented, in which then I hope to further elaborate them accordingly and prove as to why Europe should NOT have a moral obligation to accept more refugees from Iraq and Syria. Over to you, pro. Sources - [A] - . http://www.buzzfeed.com...[B] - . http://www.theguardian.com...[C] - . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[D] - . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[E] - . http://www.independent.co.uk...[F] - . http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org...[G] - . http://edition.cnn.com...