“A nation ringed by walls will only imprison itself.”
― Barack Obama
 
Persecuted. Traumatized. Human rights violated. The world now witnesses the highest levels of displacement in history. 79.5 million people have been forcibly displaced, including 26 million refugees, 45.7 million “internally displaced individuals,” and 4.2 million asylum seekers. This number equates to nearly the entire population of Germany. In 2021, the number of displaced increased by 8.7 million, so one person is displaced every three seconds.[9] To address this issue, this article will explain why first world countries are morally obligated to accept refugees.
 
To answer this question, we must explain one concept. When a nation does not accept refugees, it is committing a crime. It is committing a crime of inaction. A crime of inaction is when one ignores someone’s call for help, even though they are in a life and death situation. For example, a person commits a crime of inaction when a person walks past a child drowning in a lake. The same applies to the refugee crisis. When a country does not accept refugees, the country commits a crime of inaction, and thus failing to uphold basic moral standards. In theory, all countries should accept refugees, because it is the moral thing to do. All people, no matter whether they are seeking asylum or not, are human beings. When a country turns down refugees, it watches as the refugees get eaten by the lions in the pit while the country is holding the ropes in its hands. As German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “Every person who comes is a human being and has the right to be treated as such.”[6]
 
Most countries have laws and programs, from food stamps to college scholarships, designed to protect the most vulnerable groups. When refugees come to a country’s doorstep, the refugees become the most vulnerable, and if countries do not protect these refugees, the citizens may doubt their governments’ abilities to protect the weak. They may say that “next time, if we are the most vulnerable, will the government just abandon us like the refugees before?” Thus, to meet the standards of their own laws and to earn the trust of the citizens, the first world countries should be morally obligated to accept refugees. As the chief of the WHO Tedros Ghebreyesus says: “It’s vital that countries pay careful attention to the most vulnerable members of their societies.”[4]
 
Some citizens are concerned about refugees “stealing their jobs,” burdening their healthcare and welfare systems, and using their infrastructure, while not giving back to society. This is a popular social narrative about refugees because many people are not familiar with the benefits that refugees bring. They claim that because refugees come from poor countries overseas, they do not have the skills, nor the expertise to do any sophisticated jobs, thus leaving low-income jobs to the refugees. Therefore, local low-income families' jobs will be “stolen.” This is a common and understandable assumption about refugees that is often generalized to immigrants in general; however, in reality, in wealthy countries, the exact opposite happens.
 
The common misunderstanding could be based partly in the work of George Borjas, an economist who found that “a 10 per cent increase in the number of immigrants within a specific education-experience cell is associated with a 3 to 4 per cent decline in wages for workers within that cell." (Borjas, 2006) [1] However, more recent research has found Borjas' “education-experience cell” model is flawed because it “assumes that there is perfect substitutability between natives and immigrants within each skill cell." In short, Borjas only assumes that immigrants can perfectly replace locals. This assumption make his research skewed towards the negative. However, a more recent study conducted by Clemens in 2013 suggests that "Immigrants have different comparative advantages, even among less-educated workers. If so, then the native wage response to a reduced supply of immigrant workers would not be large if it existed at all. It is not difficult to find examples of occupations that native workers do not enter, such as seasonal farm labor."[1] The conclusion is that only when immigrant workers have direct competition with locals workers do wages become depressed. However, the real situation is that most of the time, immigrants do not even apply for the same jobs that locals do.
 
Further evidence continues to prove that there is "little evidence of immigrant workers lowering the wages of less-educated native workers."[7] The collection of studies have shown that 24 of the 27 empirical data studies show that a 10% increase in immigrant workers means that at maximum worker's wages will drop by 1% and that at maximum the worker's wages will increase by 1-4%. Thus, the refugees’ impact on wages is little to none. An NPR article states that "the hourly wages of high-wage workers rose 41 per cent, according to the Economic Policy Institute."[5]
 
This point is specific to first world countries. Less economically developed countries typically have a larger low-skill workforce, and with a larger low-skill workforce, there tends to be more competition when refugees arrive. In contrast, first world countries have a more spread out work range, and thus decreasing competition. According to the IZA World of Labor, "Immigration has a very small effect on the average wages of native workers... The positive wage effects of immigration are weaker in countries with rigid labor markets, which may even experience some negative employment effects."[7] Wealthy countries are likely to have less rigid labor markets, whereas poor countries’ labor markets are more rigid.
 
The above statement is another reason why wealthy countries have a moral obligation to accept refugees. According to the Norwegian Refugee Council, the countries that receive the most refugees are Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Liberia, and Uganda.[2] These countries are not the richest countries within the region where refugees appear; they are simply the closest to the places the most refugees are coming from. When first world countries deny refugees, they are forcing the refugees to stay in these countries. This will harm both the refugees and the host countries. For the refugees, staying in a poor country means they will not get the required support, and for the poor country, there will be more competition, thus pushing out some of the locals’ jobs. By refusing to take refugees, developed countries not only commit the crime of inaction, but also put an economic burden on poor countries.
 
When immigrants and refugees settle in economically developed countries, they can have positive economic and social effects. According to the CATO Institute, "Cortes and Tessada (2011) show that low-skilled immigration increases the labor market participation of high-skilled women by allowing families more freedom to hire child care or pay for other domestic tasks. An immigration decline could induce high-skilled women to leave the workforce as the cost of labor for such tasks would potentially rise." [1] This could only happen in first world countries because the women would only be incentivized to pay for childcare if the countries have a developed welfare system, which usually only developed countries have available.

Furthermore, in case studies like the city of Buffalo, New York, the contributions that refugees make to society and the economy largely outweighs the harms. An article published by Princeton University states, “Buffalo is helping refugees resettle in the U.S., but refugees are in turn helping to revitalize a declining American manufacturing city that, as a result of deindustrialization, has lost half of its population since the mid-20th century.” As a member of a community organization in Buffalo explained, “Buffalo wouldn’t be on the rise without refugees — they’re a huge economic driver. We like to call it ‘The Refugee Renaissance’.” [3] According to WKBW Buffalo, "Statistics provided by the International Institute of Buffalo showed immigrants in the Buffalo Metro Area had a spending power of $1.4 billion in 2016.  Immigrant taxes paid totalled $629 million for the same year." [8] The amount of money that immigrant and refugees pay and the taxes that they pay can compensate for the money needed to support them in the first place.

Thus, if saving refugees makes countries uphold their moral standard, and the first world countries are the only countries eligible to do it, then the first world countries should be morally obligated to host the refugees. If they refuse to accept the refugees, then they commit a crime of inaction, as well as lose human lives. They are the only ones that can save lives, and therefore the first world countries should be morally obligated to save them.
 
In summary, a nation ringed by walls will only imprison itself, by the lack of trust from the public to the government, by the lack of understanding from the citizens to the refugees, and by the lack of morality that the country presents to other nations. Let the cold-bloodedness of the man with the rope, watching the innocents die, not incarcerate us; let the inhumaneness of the simple assumption that refugees are “stealing our society” not restrained us; let the only solution of committing a crime of inaction not confine us to only; but the breaking down of walls, the opening of doors from countries, will solve the morality dilemma.
 

Bibliography
 
1. Braw, Alan de. “Does Immigration Reduce Wages?” Cato.org, 2017, www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages#references. 

2. Christophersen, Eirik. “These 10 Countries Receive the Most Refugees.” NRC, 1 Nov.
2020, www.nrc.no/perspectives/2020/the-10-countries-that-receive-the-most-refugees/. 
 
3. Clack, Julie. “'City of Good Neighbors': Students Examine Refugee Resettlement in Buffalo, N.Y.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, 26 Mar. 2018, www.princeton.edu/news/2018/03/26/city-good-neighbors-students-examine-refugee-resettlement-buffalo-ny. 

4. Ghebreyesus, Tedros. “WHO Director-General's Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19 - 6 May 2020.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, 6 May 2020, www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---6-may-2020. 

5. Kelly, Amita. “FACT CHECK: Have Immigrants Lowered Wages For Blue-Collar American Workers?” NPR, NPR, 4 Aug. 2017, www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs.
 
6. Merkel, Angela. “A Quote by Angela Merkel.” Goodreads, Goodreads, www.goodreads.com/quotes/7677474-every-person-who-comes-is-a-human-being-and-has. 

7. Peri, Giovanni. “Do Immigrant Workers Depress the Wages of Native Workers?” IZA World of Labor, May 2014, wol.iza.org/articles/do-immigrant-workers-depress-the-wages-of-native-workers. 

8. Reilly, Ed. “Fewer Refugees to Buffalo Could Impact Economy.” WKBW, WKBW, 23 Oct. 2018, www.wkbw.com/news/fewer-refugees-to-buffalo-could-impact-economy.

9. Staff, UNHCR. “Refugee Statistics.” USA for UNHCR, 2019, www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/statistics/.