Refugees & Immigrants

The Fallout Shelter

Scenario

no one can survive outside due to nuclear fallout
the shelter built to provide a posh lifestyle -- including indoor tennis courts -- for 10,000 for 20 yrs
in the aftermath of nuclear holocaust there's pressure to admit more: now necessary to stay inside 8 yrs.
three factions re: what to do

Bleeding hearts: admit 10,000 more & give up all amenities
Moderates: admit 500 & give up a few amenities
Hard hearts: admit no one: they should have built their own shelters

Comparable situation re: immigration

In the world there are a great number of refugees (15 million): people displaced from their home countries

refugees: outside the country of their nationality due to (well founded fear of) persecution: "temporarily" involuntarily displaced: e.g., ethnic Albanians forced from Kosovo into Albania & elsewhere
immigrants = persons voluntarily entering another country to premanently take up residence there

legal: enter the country legally, e.g., at Ellis Island
illegal: enter illegally, e.g., by fording the Rio Grande

Three Alternatives

voluntary repatriation to their country of origin: best if politics allow (but often they don't)
local integration into the country they first flee to

drawbacks

poverty of host nations (for 12 million of the 15)
ethnic animosities within the country they flee to

resettlement: in richer more developed countries

for many refugees the difference between life & death
for many more the only hope for a decent existence

**Current ex gratia approach**

rich communities have no moral obligation to admit refugees
if they freely choose to do so . . . bully for them

The Fallacy of the Current Approach

rich nations such as the U.S.

could resettle large numbers of refugees without seriously degrading the lifestyle of current U. S. residents

even may bring postitive benefits
call this point-where-it-starts-to-hurt A.

could resettle even larger numbers without subjecting U. S. residents to hardships comparable to those refugees are suferring

call this equal-suffering-point B

Singer's conclusion

richer nations have a moral obligation to increase their acceptance of refugees at least up to point A.
and beyond . . . though maybe not all the way to B