Should first-world countries be obliged to take a certain amount of refugees every year?

Refugees, just like the word, are people who owes to a well-founded fear of being perse-

cuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political

opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to

avail him/herself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being out-

side the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to

such fear, is unwilling to return to it. With the increasing number of refugees, more and more coun-

tries are willing and become obligated to help refugees at the same time. Therefore, first-world

countries should be obligated to help refugees, because they have enough resources to do this and

these people are fleeing from countries that are affected by war and famine.

One of the main reason that developed countries should be obligated to take more displaced

people is that they have the financial ability to do so. Middle or poor countries like Indonesia, Pak-

istan and Nigeria might not have enough budget or attention to help refugees because they are

mostly dealing with their internal problems. First - world countries like Germany, the UK and the

USA, have huge budgets that they collect in the form of tax from their citizens and companies oper-

ating in their territory every year. In order to help refugees, it would only take a tiny fraction of this

wealth to accommodate and feed millions of poorer people. For instance, it is estimated that the Eu-

ropean Union’s combined GDP is over $18 trillion, and all of the Syrian refugees could be resettled

for less than a billion dollars. First - world countries should be obligated to help refugees because

they have more conditions to do so.

Wealthy nations also have a moral obligation because refugees are trying to enter their land

because their homes have been ruined by war and hunger. No one wants to leave their homeland

with their families unless it is essential to do so and if first-world countries refuse to take them in,

they will certainly be in danger of losing their lives. As a result, refusing to help refugees is just like

watching someone to die right to the face. For example, people from Syria have no food and are of-

ten caught in the middle of full scale battles and that is the main reason why nearly 5 million of
them have escaped. First - world countries should be obligated to help refugees because it is some-

how an obligation which is necessary to do morally.

In conclusion, affluent states should be obligated help to resettle refugees because unlike the

middle or poor countries whose dealing with their internal financial problems all the time, richer

countries like first- world countries are more affordable to help them, because they have enough bu

dget and attention to do so. First-world countries should also help refugees because they are saving

their lives, which is a moral obligation to do so.