Refugee Camps and Urban Settlements

Though our moral obligations to resettle refugees or grant them asylum often dominate discussions among philosophers and the general public alike, this chapter shows why we must also think about the vast majority of refugees who will never be resettled nor even seek asylum. Over 90 percent of refugees remain in the Global South, in refugee camps or informally in urban centers, sometimes for decades. Refugee camps are often unable to protect basic rights or guarantee security and require refugees to give up their autonomy. Increasingly, refugees are refusing to go to camps and choosing instead to live, virtually without aid, in urban centers. Though they maintain their autonomy, urban refugees often struggle to find adequate work and housing, and often cannot access education for their children. This chapter demonstrates that neither of the two main options granted to refugees today allows refugees to access the minimum conditions of human dignity.

Moral Obligations, or Why We Should Help People Even If We Don’t Like Them

This chapter argues that Western liberal democracies have a moral obligation to rethink the way that refugees are treated during their displacement and to ensure they have access to the minimum conditions of human dignity. Yet many people find the language of morality uncomfortable or inappropriate when it comes to refugees. Others deny that morality is real and makes legitimate demands on us. This chapter responds to these concerns and gives an overview of the concept of a moral obligation by looking at its roots in philosophy and religion. The chapter examines the consequentialist, Kantian, religious, and human rights grounds for morality in order to demonstrate why a moral perspective is fundamental to addressing the crisis that refugees experience. This chapter makes clear that morality is not merely personal but can and must be extended globally. Countries must take their moral obligations to refugees seriously.

The Price We Demand for Asylum

Because the options for refugees in the Global South are so dire, many choose to seek asylum in a Western country. Yet even though there is a widely recognized right to seek asylum, most Western states have put in place deterrence policies to discourage and prevent asylum seekers from seeking asylum in their countries. These policies make seeking asylum difficult and sometimes deadly. Because seeking asylum in the twenty-first century is so dangerous, refugees are often forced to hire human smugglers. Increasingly, those who do make it to the West to claim asylum find themselves in circumstances similar to the ones they are fleeing: living in impoverished camps or closed off in detention centers. This aspect of the second crisis—the price we ask refugees to pay to claim asylum—is rarely discussed when considering what we owe to refugees. This chapter highlights this phenomenon and its moral implications.

Who Is a Refugee?

“Refugee” is a term that is used in many different and sometimes inconsistent ways. This chapter provides an overview of the complexities involved in defining who a refugee is. It argues that because there is no universally agreed-on definition of a refugee, one that is consistent with international law, our moral intuitions, and on-the-ground practice, we cannot be confident that we are categorizing the right people as refugees and others as not deserving of any help. The line between refugees and other kinds of forced migrants is blurry at best, and a rigid distinction is perhaps impossible. The seemingly arbitrary way that refugee status is given is a feature of the global refugee regime that contributes to the second crisis and the inability of refugees to find refuge.

Introduction

This chapter introduces the second crisis, the crisis for refugees who are unable to find refuge. Refugees are unable to live with a certain minimal level of human dignity while they wait for a long-term solution, either to go home safely or to be resettled permanently elsewhere, outcomes fewer than 2 percent of refugees will have access to. Most refugees will remain in the Global South, either in inadequate refugee camps or with little international aid in urban centers, for years and often for decades. Some will seek asylum directly in a Western country, a goal that requires spending their life savings, engaging smugglers, and risking their lives. The introduction frames the overall argument of the book and makes clear that we cannot understand our moral obligations to refugees without understanding the second crisis.

Structural Injustice

This chapter argues that the very structure of the refugee protection system—the status quo that requires refugees to negotiate a system that resettles very few, contains millions in camps, and neglects millions more outside of camps—must be understood as a structural injustice. It is an outcome that can be understood as the cumulative effect of many different policies around refugee resettlement, refugee camps, immigration, and border security enacted by countries around the world, even though they did not intend this outcome. By focusing on the outcome, not the intentions behind it, we’re better able to see the injustice involved in our current treatment of refugees. After developing this unique interpretation of the refugee crisis, that chapter shows why all countries, but especially Western states, share political responsibility to address it. Political responsibility is shared by all those who contribute through their actions to sustaining the injustice.

Conclusion

This chapter examines a number of ways that we, both as states and as individuals, can dismantle the structural injustice described in the previous chapter and provide refugees access to the minimum conditions of human dignity. This chapter argues that we should support the integration of refugees via our political and economic policies. Integration would allow refugees to be part of local communities, work, and be political actors, while they wait for a more permanent solution. In addition, states must work collaboratively to support, expand, and normalize resettlement. Individuals also have a large role to play in helping refugees find refuge. The chapter concludes with some examples of how individuals can play a role in helping refugees access the minimum conditions of human dignity and work toward deeper solutions.

Reasons for and against Accepting Refugees

For most people in the West, whether or not we should accept refugees, either by offering them asylum or through resettlement, is the key ethical question. But precisely why states have obligations to take in refugees is often less clear. This chapter discusses the philosophical debate surrounding states’ moral obligations to asylum seekers and refugees. The chapter explores three moral arguments for allowing refugees and asylum seekers into our countries, in fairly high, though not unlimited, numbers. But it also engages with the opposing view and shows why some believe our obligations to refugees do not necessarily include resettlement or asylum. This chapter helps people on opposing sides of the debate understand each other’s perspectives.