Refugees In The United States: An Ethical Analysis

Throughout this Ethics course, a wide variety of moral systems have been presented, analyzed, and discussed. Students have learned about the social and cultural differences that caused these systems to form and develop differently from society to society. From this understanding, we have learned how to apply these moral codes to situations we face today, including abortion laws and the use of the death penalty in the United States. Using what I have learned, I would like to examine the controversy over allowing refugees into the United States through the lenses of three moral systems: utilitarianism, care ethics, and Ubuntu. This debate is primarily a conflict between the desire to reach out and help our fellow human beings in their greatest

Unfortunately, the communities around them are also becoming increasingly overwhelmed, so even relations there are crumbling. Cases and anecdotes from our European counterparts suggest that many refugees do not seek to achieve employment or work to learn their language and culture, on top of committing a variety of violent and non-violent crimes. According to Raheem Kassam and Chris Tomlinson in their article “Migrants Committing Disproportionately High Crime in Germany,” Syrians have are responsible for ten thousand, three hundred and forty-eight individual non-border related offenses, and three thousand, one hundred and eighty-six assaults. Statistics such as this, coupled with our ongoing conflicts with terrorists in the Middle East, especially ISIS, Boko Haram, and al-Qaeda, lead many to oppose welcoming refugees as they fear they may either be a menace to our society or a terrorist hiding in the ranks. On the economic side of this, while refugees do not appear to have a major effect on wages, they tend to rely on receiving benefits while being less likely to be employed, especially if they are more recent arrivals. (Economic Impact of Refugees, The Economist) As a result, they can be a drain on society in the face of those who work and pay into their benefits. These arguments are the primary support

In the case of allowing refugees into the country, the pleasure for both sides is that we are providing shelter for people in desperate need. The new additions may find their own ways to contribute to our society and help forge a mutually beneficial relationship. The pain is the risk of allowing people who are trouble-makers or pure evil into our home, as well as potential economic risks. Those who are strongly guided by feelings of compassion for the refugees feel that these fears and risks are unfounded or unlikely and are unfair grounds for barring innocent people from taking shelter. Utilitarian theory understands that it would be ideal to be able to allow these refugees to take shelter in any country that can provide them their safety, but considers the consequences when calculating what is best. It seems that because it would be most ideal to be able to provide a safe home for those displaced by war, and that they may contribute to our society, that the pleasure in this situation is weighty. The fear of criminal or terrorist activity is understandable and practical, but the United States has yet to have a negative experience as a direct result of recent asylum seekers. The odds are not quite as likely or terrible as they may seem, especially with terrorism, as posing as a refugee is not the most efficient or effective way to cause