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

In life, we are guided by our morality because it is a means to an end. That end is a lasting livelihood that is secure, free, exhilarating, and shared. We wish for such an end because our nature demands it. We want to be free. We want to have choice. We want to have goods and services (a quality of life) and we want to share these qualities with those we love. This human nature explains why we do certain good things for others, and by the same token, why we do bad things. In today’s western democratic societies, the policies a country makes are, for better or worse, a reflection of its national morality. Below, I will examine two expansive arguments that support the resolution.1. The Golden Rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” This rule is a fundamental moral rule that is shared across virtually all cultures and religions. Over four million refugees have taken refuge in parts of the Middle East, including Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. (1). For Europe: “More than 1m migrants have reached Europe this year …” (2) Naturally, Europeans’ moral impulses kicked in. Europe’s economies have been stagnant ever since the Great Recession in 2009. PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain) are struggling to survive in the Euro and some of these countries have crippling debts. Elsewhere, like in France and England, a decades long collision between Judeo-Christian and Muslims cultures has begun national political debates dividing nations and causing social disarray. Despite the struggling economies and identity politics, many of these European countries are still taking in these refugees. Why? Because it’s what you would have wanted had you been on the other side of the equation. Quite simply, it’s the right thing to do. Otherwise, you’d be dishonest; you’d be the worst kind of hypocrite. It is immoral not to accept refugees on the basis of the golden rule. To be clear, I am not justifying using the golden rule to pander to any and all circumstances. There are obviously varying degrees of moral culpability when it comes to this rule. Yet, the scenario that demands such application the most, on a macro level, is the issue of refugees. Nowhere to go, nothing to eat, and no place to sleep, millions of people, who are just like you and I, are staring death in the eye every day. On top of that, they are innocent people forced into such predicaments by a war they have nothing to do with. To deny any refugees entry into your country, even for temporary asylum, is an affront to your dignity and a sign of monumental hypocrisy. There is the old adage “what goes around comes around.” This maxim is basically the explanatory version of the golden rule. The principal at play here is examined as a cause-effect relationship. If you do something disrespectful or insensible to another, expect the person to mirror your actions in response. On the other hand, although never guaranteed, you can likely expect the same benefits bestowed upon you in the form of respect, hospitality, and more, if you treat the other person well. Ultimately, this means you have a vested interested in maintaining good relationships with your peers, and in this case, with nations. Stronger international relations will lead to a more secure livelihood. If my application of the golden rule to international relations is contended, I will expand this case as a rebuttal in round 4 (word limit). 2. Economics and the demographic dividend Most, if not all, of Europe’s major economies are suffering from a declining birthrate and thus a smaller workforce. “The demographic dividend is the economic growth potential that can result from shifts in a population’s age structure, mainly when the share of the working-age population (15 to 64) is larger than the non-working-age share of the population (14 and younger, and 65 and older.” (3) Why does this happen? Developed economies are most affected by the issue of an aging population because there is a fundamental difference in the perception of children when a country is in its undeveloped stage versus its developed stage. The theory is simple: in under-developed and developing countries children are viewed more as investments rather than “consumption goods.” In underdeveloped countries, children are seen as more of a tool to help keep the family afloat through labor – or added income to the family. In other words, children are born and raised primarily to support the family. The other reason is that the mortality rate is higher in underdeveloped countries, requiring families to produce more children due to less children surviving to adulthood. On the other hand, in developed countries like those in Europe, children are viewed as consumption goods. In the developed country, children are no longer needed to A) help sustain the family’s finances and B) their mortality rate is much lower, meaning children live longer. There is no longer the same incentive to “invest” in children in such a way; rather, families in high-income economies can afford to have children for personal enrichment or fulfillment. Assuredly, the more children such a family has, the harder it will be to provide for those children. It is well known that immigration is a key method in curtailing such demographic dips. The greatest example available is that of the United States. One of the main reasons why issues of fertility are not prevalent in the United States, as opposed to countries like France, Germany, and Japan, is that the U.S, over the course of the last century, has received far more immigrants than all others. (4) In fact, the U.S receives the most immigrants in the world. You can check in source 5 the U.S tops the list for decades. (5) So we now know that Immigration is a great, surefire antidote to an aging population. But why is that good? As explained above, those in the workforce are those in between the ages of 15 and 64. The vast majority of immigrants are young adults ready to work. This essentially means that practically all the immigrants are leaving for their host country to find work in search of a better life. If you have more people in the country producing for the economy, there will be a higher volume of money circulating in the economy, resulting in increased consumption. If you are unaware of how consumption affects the economy, please refer to my previous debate on homeschooling (i.e., Y = C + I + G + Nx). This idea ties in well with the statistics available, knowing that the U.S is considered “the land of opportunity” it only makes sense to see people from all over the world wanting to live and work in the U.S. Most immigrants end up helping the economy because they fill jobs nobody wants to take – usually the minimum-wage jobs. All of this applies to European countries as all economies have their share of minimum-wage jobs, middle-income families, etc. Again, European economic GDP has been relatively flat for half a decade now and their populations are stagnant. Immigrants – in this case Syrian refugees – will provide an economic boost necessary to reboot, or at least add fuel to, European economies. Helping to boost the economy will help enrich the quality of Europeans’ lives. If a stronger economy helps provide a better quality of life for both the host country and the refugees, accepting said refugees and putting them to work will act as a means to the end I laid out in my introduction. I have laid out my main arguments to their fullest given the 8,000 character limit. I now await Con’s arguments! Sources 1. https://www.amnesty.org... 2. http://www.ft.com... 3. http://www.unfpa.org... 4. http://www.migrationpolicy.org... 5. http://www.migrationpolicy.org...