Transcript Humanitarian Action and the Current Refugee Crisis

November
Public
Forum
Resolution
Humanitarian Action
and the Current
Refugee Crisis
Stefan Bauschard
Outline of the Lecture
Terms of the Resolution

Background
 Pro & Con Arguments

Strategic Considerations
The Resolution
 In response to the current crisis, a government should prioritize
the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interests.
owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted 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 himself of the
protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside 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.
Although central to the refugee definition, ‘persecution’ itself is not defined in the 1951
Convention. Articles 31 and 33 refer to threats to life or freedom, so clearly it includes the
threat of death, or the threat of torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment.
notion
A comprehensive analysis requires the general
to be related to developments within the broad field of human rights,6 and the recognition that fear of persecution and lack of protection are themselves
interrelated elements. The persecuted do not enjoy the protection of their country of origin, while evidence of the lack of protection on either the internal or external level may
create a presumption as to the (p. 39) likelihood of persecution and to the well-foundedness of any fear. However, there is no necessary linkage between persecution and
of the protection of the state or
government, and the notion of inability to secure the protection of the state is broad
enough to include a situation where the authorities cannot or will not provide protection,
for example, against persecution by non-state actors.
government authority. A Convention refugee, by definition, must be unable or unwilling to avail him- or herself
Refugee
4 Under international law, Art. 1 A (2) Refugee Convention
defines the notion ‘refugee’ as a person who,
Not a climate migrant -- As the planet’s ocean and seawaters continue to
Relating to the Status of Refugees.iiivWith the 1951 Convention, and 1967 Protocol Relating
to the Status of refugees in mind, the classification of climate-induced migrants as
refugees, cannot be justified under international refugee law due to the absence of
persecution.ccxviii
Not someone seeking relief of famine –
It is commonplace to speak of those in flight from famine , or otherwise migrating in search
of food, as “refugees.” Over the past decade alone, millions of persons have abandoned
their homes in countries such as North Korea, Sudan, Ethiopia, Congo, and Somalia,
hoping that by moving they could find the nourishment needed to survive. In a colloquial
sense, these people are refugees: they are on the move not by choice, but rather
because their own desperation compels them to pursue a survival strategy away from the
desperation confronting their home communities. In legal terms, however, refugee status
is defined in a significantly more constrained way. The key standard, set by the United
Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951,1 as supplemented by the
Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 1967,2
limits refugee status to a person who owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted 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 himself of the protection of that country. . .
Refugee
rise, coastal land becomes inundated, staple crops are destroyed by salinity intrusion,
ecosystems are decimated or altered due to salt toxicity, and human populations are
forcibly displaced.i The resulting displaced persons, safely referred to as climate-induced
migrants, either become internally displaced persons (IDP’s) within their borders or cross
international borders as a means of survival.ii Legally these migrants fall outside the rigid
framework of the International Legal Regime for the protection of refugees. Unfortunately
the plight of these climate-induced migrants is not aligned with the scope and definition of
the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol
.There are other definitions – Broader
UNHCR adopts just such an expansive definition in interpreting its mandate to protect
refugees. I noted above that UNHCR was responsible for over ten million refugees in
2011.22 Not all of these people would qualify as refugees under the Convention definition,
but UNHCR also recognizes as refugees persons who are outside their country of
nationality or habitual residence and unable to return there owing to serious and
indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from generalized
violence or events seriously disturbing public order.
Carens
Refugee Convention definition is critiqued –
For example, some states have accepted women fleeing domestic violence as refugees
on the grounds that the state from which they were fleeing did not take this threat seriously
and this amounted to persecution on the basis of gender. 20 Even on the most expansive
interpretation of the Convention, however, people fleeing civil wars and famine are
generally not thought to qualify, because they are not targets of violence or deprivation,
despite the fact that their lives are in danger.
On the other hand, someone who seeks asylum because she was thrown in jail for a few
weeks for expressing political views would normally qualify as a refugee under the
Convention. In my view, this discrepancy reveals that the Convention embodies a
misplaced set of priorities. To insist that a refugee must be deliberately targeted is a
mistake. From a moral perspective, what is most important is the severity of the threat to
basic human rights and the degree of risk rather than the
source or character of the threat
Refugee
.Anyone fleeing violence –
What is the “current crisis”?
Crisis facing the Middle East and Europe
1. Largest refugee crisis in the world – since WWII
2. Multiple countries
-- People fleeing Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Yemen, Libya, Egypt
-- Turkey (2 million), Lebanon (1.1 million), Jordan (1.4 million)
-- Europe (1 million +) Germany 270,000 in September
-- 3 million more could leave Syria, it will get worse & no end in sight for the wars . 4 million
have left Syria since 2011.
3. Refugee camps overwhelmed. Jordan not taking many more. Can’t feed people,
some are returning to Syria.
4. Nexis – Refuge w/10 “current crisis” 99% about European crisis
5. Sorry, climate doesn’t qualify, need to limit to status quo definition
6. Context of the arguments doesn’t change that much
Current Crisis
60 million refugees world wide
1.
2.
3.
4.
Inconsistent with a broader definition of refugees
Excludes many important discussions
Discussion is really general, so no harm
Nothing that explicitly does – you can search “current
crisis” and find other examples
Current Crisis
Not Limited to Middle East & Europe
as well as to prevent and strengthen preparedness for the
occurrence of such situations (Source: Good Humanitarian Donorship). What marks it out from other forms of aid and foreign assistance is that it should be guided by the principles of:
Relief Aid
Relief aid refers to the provision of such assistance to those
affected by a disaster, based on an initial rapid assessment of
needs, and designed to contribute effectively to their recovery
Food:
Shelter:
Non-food Items: These items might include clothing, blankets,
bedding, stoves and kitchen sets, water containers and hygiene
products.
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion:
Humanitarian Needs
Humanitarian assistance is generally accepted to mean the aid
and action designed to save lives, alleviate suffering and
maintain and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath
of man-made crises and natural disasters,
Humanitarian aid is material and logistic assistance to
people in need. It is usually short-term help until the longterm help by government and other institutions replaces it.
Among the people in need belong homeless, refugees,
victims of natural disasters, wars and famines.
Humanitarian Needs
Wikipedia, Humanitarian Aid,
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+humanit
arian+aid DOA: 10-2-15
To say one thing is more important than the other
Designate or treat (something) as more important than
other things.
"prioritize your credit card debt"
synonyms:
emphasize, concentrate on, put first, focus on, fast-track,
expedite, make a priority
"we must prioritize pollution control"
determine the order for dealing with (a series of items or
tasks) according to their relative importance.
"age affects the way people prioritize their goals"
synonyms:
rank, order, hierarchize, triage; More
Prioritize
Google Definitions:, no date,
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+prioritize
DOA: 10-2-15
gov·ern·ment
ˈɡəvər(n)mənt/
noun
noun: government; plural noun: governments
1.
the governing body of a nation, state, or community.
"an agency of the federal government"
Government
Google Definitions, no date,
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+govern
ment DOA: 10-2-15
Governing body
not any particular or certain one of a class or group:
a man; a chemical; a house.
2.
a certain; a particular:
one at a time; two of a kind; A Miss Johnson called.
3.
another; one typically resembling:
a Cicero in eloquence; a Jonah.
4.
one (used before plural nouns that are preceded by a quantifier singular in form): a
hundred men(compare hundreds of men); a dozen times(compare dozens of times).
5.
indefinitely or nonspecifically (used with adjectives expressing number):
a great many years; a few stars.
6.
one (used before a noun expressing quantity):
a yard of ribbon; a score of times.
7.
any; a single:
not a one.
a
.
Dinctionary.com
Michael Williams, University of Wales, 2005, European
Journal of International Relations, vol 11(3), What is the
National Interest? The Neoconservative Challenge in IR
Theory, p. 321
Neoconservatism’s critique of Realism emerges from this
perspective, and develops along three reinforcing lines.
First, the endless debates and indeterminacy within
Realism over what the national interest is, reflected more
than just the complexities of judgment, which
neoconservatives readily acknowledge.
Realists – power, self interest
liberalis – values, international law
Neoconservatives – promotion US values, we’re great
National Interest
No agreed on meeting
Should
Should is a duty or obligation
Webster's II, 1984, p. 1078
Should is used to express duty or obligation
Arguments to Win
Humanitarian Need
Moral Obligation to Act on It
Bad to Prioritize the National Interest
Humanitarian Need
• Given you an idea of the magnitude
• 500,000+ have crossed by sea – 3,000 have died
Alyan, 3
Humanitarian Needs
• Given you an idea of the magnitude
• 500,000+ have crossed by sea – 3,000 have died
• For the refugees coming by boat, the immediate health concerns
are exposure, dehydration, and if there's capsizing, there's going to
be the risk of drowning or near-drownings
• "There's also a portion of refugees who end up in local communities
with relatives or places that are culturally similar where they're
squatting, so there's overcrowding and displacing of the health care
resources available there
• ." Refugee camps present a host of their own health problems,
including over-crowding, inadequate access to water and poor
sanitation services. This can subsequently lead to outbreaks, such as
cholera and typhoid
Humanitarian Needs
•
Refugee children experience trauma resulting from war and political violence in their countries of
origin prior to migration, as well as during flight or in refugee camps. These multiple stressors include
direct exposure to war time violence and combat experience, displacement and loss of home,
malnutrition, separation from caregivers, detention and torture and a multitude of other traumatic
circumstances affecting the children’s health, mental health and general well being. A large number
of studies have documented a wide range of symptoms experienced by refugee children
•
Every member state, except the Netherlands, has slashed contributions to the World Food Progamme
The drastic cuts over the past year mean the UN agency has been unable to hand out food vouchers
to hundreds of thousands of Syrians at refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and Turkey
•
. In Turkey, around 60,000 women gave birth in the camps since the start of the conflict. WFP has since
had to halve assistance to almost 1.3 million Syrian refugees in the region
•
Austria, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, and Slovakia made the most drastic cuts. All sliced their
contributions by 100 percent this year, compared to last year. Sweden’s contribution dropped by 95
percent, followed by Lithuania at 69.5 percent, and Belgium at 54.7 percent.
•
AID V. ASYLUM
Moral Obligation
General sense -- Refugees are spending thousands of euros to make treacherous journeys over land and
sea. As the world has lately been reminded (but too infrequently for my taste), many die along the way.
This is an economic problem as well as a moral one. An impoverished refugee will have a harder time
making a fresh start, and a dead refugee never gets the chance.
Compassion -- Nonetheless, as human beings, we have a duty to show compassion and to provide them
with assistance. This is also our duty as Europeans. The European community was founded on the principle
of solidarity. Today we must not refuse to take joint responsibility for the union, nor turn a blind eye to
human suffering and the situation of countries most affected by the rising tide of migration
Impossible for them to live there -- The Vietnamese and Hungarians were fleeing Communism. What’s
holding back sympathy for the Syrians? They’ve been barrel-bombed in Aleppo by their own regime,
they’ve been tortured, kidnapped and massacred by miscellaneous jihadis and opposition militias.
Mutual Aid (Walzer) - in certain circumstances, strangers (but not enemies) might be entitled to our
hospitality, assistance, and good will. This acknowledgment can be formalized as the principle of mutual
aid, which suggests the duties that we owe, as John Rawls has written, “not only to definite individuals, say
to those cooperating together in some social arrangement, but to persons generally.” 1 Mutual aid
extends across political (and also cultural, religious, and linguistic) frontiers.
Moral Obligation
•
Special obligation to children -- Because of their special vulnerability and inability to represent
themselves, unaccompanied children should be provided with legal representation and guardians ad
litem to assist them in immigration proceedings and to see that care and placement decisions are
made with a child's best interest in mind.
•
Hospitality -- The increasing popularity of leaders of far right parties, who all publicly voice xenophobia
and racism against those perceived as foreigners, are alarming examples of the return of exclusionist
popular nationalism and fascism to haunt postcolonial Europe. 'Immigration' demands and those of
ethnic minorities, especially religious demands, have become contentious issues in Europe. Hospitality
has become more difficult since the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent 'war on terror' led by the
American Government.
•
Should end misery -- The other concerns me in all his material misery. It is a matter, eventually, of
nourishing him, of clothing him”, says Levinas (2001: 52). In the same vein his notion of substitution aims
to disclose our capacity to feel the other’s pain in our own flesh (Levinas 1981: 117). In fact, one’s
responsibility for the other can be likened to one’s devotion to oneself (Levinas 1989b: 83). Levinas’s
understanding of “ethics” does not provide for responsibility as a psychological event theorisation
remains in order to solve moral and practical problems. The other person is both the ethical other and
the political third (Levinas 1981: 160), and it is the presence of the third that necessitates justice,
knowledge, equality, politics,
Moral Obligation
•
Special obligation to children -- Because of their special vulnerability and inability to represent
themselves, unaccompanied children should be provided with legal representation and guardians ad
litem to assist them in immigration proceedings and to see that care and placement decisions are
made with a child's best interest in mind.
•
Hospitality -- The increasing popularity of leaders of far right parties, who all publicly voice xenophobia
and racism against those perceived as foreigners, are alarming examples of the return of exclusionist
popular nationalism and fascism to haunt postcolonial Europe. 'Immigration' demands and those of
ethnic minorities, especially religious demands, have become contentious issues in Europe. Hospitality
has become more difficult since the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent 'war on terror' led by the
American Government.
•
Should end misery -- The other concerns me in all his material misery. It is a matter, eventually, of
nourishing him, of clothing him”, says Levinas (2001: 52). In the same vein his notion of substitution aims
to disclose our capacity to feel the other’s pain in our own flesh (Levinas 1981: 117). In fact, one’s
responsibility for the other can be likened to one’s devotion to oneself (Levinas 1989b: 83). Levinas’s
understanding of “ethics” does not provide for responsibility as a psychological event theorisation
remains in order to solve moral and practical problems. The other person is both the ethical other and
the political third (Levinas 1981: 160), and it is the presence of the third that necessitates justice,
knowledge, equality, politics,
Moral Obligation
The other -- This face-to-face encounter is thus no cognitive event. As we have seen, I cannot know the
Other as Other without diminishing his or her otherness. I can, however, encounter that Other in what
Levinas terms an ethical event. Indeed, it is only with the rending of the ontological schema that ethics first
becomes possible. Prior to my meeting with the Other, there is no ethics as such. Within the totality of
being, I am limited in my egoist ambition only by a lack of power. The Other who meets me face-to-face
challenges my very right to exercise power. In so doing, ethics is born. Cognition no longer represents the
highest activity of which a human is capable; it is replaced by "revelation" of the Other as an ethical event
in which, for the first time, I come to realize the arbitrariness of my egoist ambitions. The thematizing of the
cognitive subject is replaced by nothing short of an act of witness on the part of a being who now
becomes an ethical subject. The Other who contests me is an Other truly independent of my
appropriative powers and thus one to whom I can have, for the first time, ethical obligations. As Levinas
puts it, this Other is the first being whom I can wish to murder. Before the totality is rent by the manifestation
of the face, there can be no will to act immorally, as there can be no will to act morally, in any ultimate
sense of that word. If one begins with the "imperial I" appropriating its world, ethics as such can never be
founded. The other with whom I inter- act is simply a datum, an aspect of my universe. Morality makes its
first appearance when I confront the Other who is truly Other. Although the Other appears to me now, on
principle, as someone I could wish to kill, he or she in fact summons me to respond with nonviolence:
Moral Obligation
Veil of Ignorance (Rawls) -Golden Rule -- , the pope, who was often interrupted by applause, reminded lawmakers of the Golden
Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." He also told the joint session on Capitol Hill
that immigrants are looking for a better life for themselves and their loved ones, which is the same that
anyone would want for their children. "We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them
as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their
situation," the pope said.
Empathy -- On Sunday, I accompanied the employment minister, Ylva Johansson, to a rally organized by
the youth movements of the Social Democrats, the Greens, and other progressive parties. The featured
speaker was the prime minister himself. As thousands braved a nasty rainstorm to attend the outdoor
rally, Löfven declared, "We need to decide right now what kind of Europe we are going to be. My Europe
takes in refugees. My Europe doesn't build walls," he said. Johansson added, in our conversation, "In
Sweden we are different and we need to stay different. To feel empathy with the suffering of another
person, a person who is not like ourselves, is part of being human. To solve this refugee crisis is not rocket
science, it is not impossible."
Moral Obligation
Moral obligation quite strong for Refugees, at least as under the 1951
Convention and possibly under an expanded definition
Philosophers like John Rawls & Michael Walzer – strong defenders of
community determination and state justification for immigration
restriction say we should accept refugees – until the state would
collapse, so no absolute
Fit everyone in the lifeboat we can, and the lifeboat isn’t even close to
full
Is this a Pro or a Con argument?
Only contrary is Wellman, and he says association isn’t ABSOLUTE
Moral Obligation – Intl Law
• A Convention is a piece of international legislation, international
law.
< Classic (Westphalian) international law is a contract law of sovereign states. There are
three sources: contracts of sovereign states, customary international law and some general
legal principles. The principle of sovereignty implies the recognition of non-interference in
the internal affairs of a state. The goal of international law is the securing of peace
between states; therefore, the right of a sovereign state to war (jus ad bellum ) is limited
and, increasingly, rejected.>
•
Countries agree to uphold international conventions and based on assumption of
universality of certain norms. In order to be valid, they have to be ratified and then
they have to be aligned with national legislation.
• 1951 Refugee Convention – Creates obligations from those who have ratified it
-- Asylum
-- Aid
Moral Obligation – Human
Rights
•
•
•
•
Human Rights based on the idea that people exist and have dignity
Protected in international law, UN Declaration of human rights
Literally apply to people within states, not stateless
Still a moral obligation, even if the stateless can’t make a rights
claim
• HR generally about things like free speech, people trying to survive
• Spirit of human rights means we must act
Practical Benefits
• Economies (of others)
• War (in other countries)
National Interest
• Lacks morality
• Not relevant in a multilateral world/multilateralism better.
Neoliberalism embraces multilateralism as the answer to the security
challenges.
• Causes Aggression
• Can justify the dropping of the atomic bomb
• Arguably a social construction, can see the world different
• Causes security paranoia
• Assumptions flawed – humans not inherently evil, power hungry
The Con
It’s good to act in the national interest
Minimize morality claim, emphasize “priority”
It’s bad to base morality on foreign policy
The National Interest
 Indeed, the rule of morality in this respect is not precisely the same
between nations as between individuals. The duty of making its own
welfare the guide of its actions, is much stronger upon the former than
upon the latter; in proportion to the greater magnitude and importance of
national compared with individual happiness, and to the greater
permanency of the effects of national than of individual conduct. Existing
millions, and for the most part future generations, are concerned in the
present measures of a government; while the consequences of the private
actions of an individual ordinarily terminate with himself, or are
circumscribed within a narrow compass.
 The basic fact of international politics is the absence of a society able to
protect the existence, and to promote the interests, of the individual
nations. For the individual nations to take care of their own national interests
is, then, a political necessity. There can be no moral duty to neglect them;
for as the international society is at present constituted, the consistent
neglect of the national interest can only lead to national suicide. Yet it can
be shown that there exists even a positive moral duty for the individual
nation to take care of its national interests.
The National Interest

A self-help system is one in which those who do not help themselves, or who do so less effectively than
others, will suffer. Fear of such unwanted consequences stimulates states to behave in ways that tend
toward the creation of balances of power. Notice that the theory requires no assumptions of rationality
or of constancy of will on the part of all the actors. The theory says simply that if some do relatively well,
others will emulate them or fall by the wayside. Obviously, the system won't work won't work if all states
lose interest in preserving themselves. It will, however, continue to work if some states do, while others
do not, choose to lose their political identities, say, through amalgamation. Nor need it be assured that
all of the competing states are striving relentlessly to increase their power. The possibility that force may
be used by some states to weaken or destroy others does, however, make it difficult for them to break
out of the competitive system.

Can’t help others if you don’t first protect yourself
 Con doesn’t have to win that helping refugees threatens the
national interest. And it’s not a debate the Con wants to start.
Minimize
Humanitarian
Claims
1. We can and should do
more
2. Prioritize when they conflict
3. Morally mitigating
conditions
4. Morality claims, even
deontic claims, are not
absolute
3. Moral Minimizers

States have responsibility to citizens, mot
others

The state is under a universal demand to avoid
violating human rights, that is, whether the
violation occurs within its jurisdiction or not. But
the state is under no correspondingly universal
obligation to protect or fulfill the rights of
humans qua humans. The state is instead
obliged to protect and fulfill the rights of only
some humans, namely, those who happen to
be present within its territorial jurisdiction. This
limitation does not seem by itself to run up
against the liberal demand for the equality of
persons; it is instead the means by which that
equality is to be made operational in a world
of territorial states. Thus, an assault in France
upon a French citizen is undoubtedly a
violation of human rights, and is undoubtedly
to be regretted by all states, French or
otherwise. But the United States is not obliged
to devote its institutional capacity to the
vindication of the rights of the French citizen to
be free from assault
 Only moral obligation is to avoid harm
 In a less than perfect world, where the
ideal so obviously lies beyond human
reach, it is natural that the avoidance
of the worst should often be a more
practical undertaking than the
achievement of the best, and that
some of the strongest imperatives of
moral conduct should be ones of a
negative rather than a positive nature

Avoid war, not moralize

Rather, Political realism should be seen as a group or
class of theories, hypothesis and world views that have
no more in common than a pessimistic view towards
utopian notions of progress solely based on appeals to
reason and values. Unfortunately, realists tell us, our first
task is to secure relative peace (absence of war) and
stability. Realists thus are sceptical against any thinker or
politician who claims to have found a promising path
towards a platform on which to build a universal
approach to secure democracy, toleration, the rule of
law, human rights and peace, all being the ultimate
goals of both idealists and realists.
3. Moral Minimizers
 Infinite moral responsibility
practically impossible
Anderson believes that the
lawyer’s charity seems to go
beyond what most would have
given. This raises a question, he
believes, which underpins the
story: is it possible to perform
acts of altruism without, finally,
having regard to self–interest?
What this suggests is that Christ’s
commandments reflect an
ideal, one that the rest of us find
impossible to live up to
because, at a certain point, we
all turn back to self–
preservation

Obligations don’t apply to large numbers

Since ideological (far more than ethnic) affinity is a
matter of mutual recognition, there is a lot of room
here for political choice— and thus, for exclusion
as well as admission. Hence it might be said that
my argument doesn’t reach to the desperation of
the refugee. Nor does it suggest any way of
dealing with the vast numbers of refugees
generated by twentieth-century politics. On the
one hand, everyone must have a place to live, and
a place where a reasonably secure life is possible.
On the other hand, this is not a right that can be
enforced against particular host states
Morality in Foreign Policy Bad
 Acting on ethical imperatives can have terrible consequences. An ethical God can only
judge. Here the danger and terror of ethics arises. The paradox is that Nazism could also be
interpreted along these lines, as becomes clear in the thought of Peter Haas. Nazism seems to
be founded on a definite, ruthless (indeed perverted) "ethical" code. Nazism was in all possible
respects merciless. Whoever did not comply with its "ethical" demands inevitably "deserved" to
be eliminated …Levinas's ethics should also be questioned as to its possibility of becoming
fanatic in confrontation with evildoers. We must there- fore also put forth the question: "What
comes after ethics?"
 Subordinating the national interest to conflicting views of morality violates the will of the
people.
 Elected officials of a representative republican government, however, have no such
right. While always professing a general morality, they do not run for office on the basis
of a specific, declared hierarchy of moral values and judgments, but rather, at best, on
a stated notion of the national interest. Certainly none has ever run on a program of
subordinating the security and interests of the country to any particular view of the
morality of foreign governments. Yet such a program is implicit in any policy that is
shaped by the internal behavior of foreign nations.
Concluding Thoughts
 1. Pro has an enormous persuasive advantage with
humanitarianism and they don’t have to argue for asylum.
Multiple moral claims
 2. Con should argue that humanitarian assistance should be
supported, just not when it conflicts.
 3. Con needs to defend reasonable, pragmatic morality
 4. Cond needs to defend the importance of the national interest.
Con should try to concretize as much as possible.
 5. Can the Con say that humanitarian needs shouldn’t be
prioritized because the humanitarian needs of those in the current
crisis don’t conflict with the national interest?
 6. Specific case – Open Borders?