Global Migration Crisis: Questioning the Moral Responsibility of Wealthy Nations

Is it morally justified to push the responsibility of shouldering refugees to wealthy nations? Watch the future of the global migration crisis unfold as nationalism takes the lead. 

According to humankind’s morals, the rich must assist the poor, and the strong must shield the weak, but we have never questioned the moral justification of this assumption on the side of the wealthy or the strong. Is it morally justified to place all responsibility of becoming a “world-redeemer” on the wealthy just because they have more money?

There lies a tipping point on an inverted-U curve when shouldering excessive responsibility begets intractable outcomes. The United States, one of the world's largest economies by nominal GDP of 27.36 trillion, according to the World Bank, struggles with shouldering the responsibility of migrants as a wealthy nation. While it is important to have compassion for refugees “anxiously waiting to begin their new lives,” says former president Joe Biden, the post-pandemic pessimism in job markets, the bankruptcy of many insurance firms due to the massive California wildfire, and the polarization of politics already poses many challenges for the Federal government. Under the Biden-Harris administration’s policy, $81.7 million dollars originating from taxpayers were spent on the Safe Mobility Initiative to promote humane migration management, while in the larger picture, the net fiscal impact of refugees on the U.S. economy contributed a “staggering $123.8 billion more than they have cost in government expenditures,” as stated by the Administration for Children and Families. According to Mayor Adams of NYC, the potential 12 billion dollars to be spent on the migrant crisis is past “our breaking point.” According to Fox News, the total is more than the budget for the city’s fire, parks, and sanitation combined.

 The abundance of refugees and migrants fleeing violence simply brought the virus of violence to America, exacerbating existing social insecurity. The recently-legislated Laken Riley Act is a result of the murder of a 22-year-old nursing student in Athens, Georgia, by a Venezuelan national living in the U.S. illegally. Chris Clem, a Border Patrol Chief argues, “When you’re asking for billions of dollars for sanctuary cities and states, those are all buckets to help bail out water but they won’t fix the hole in the boat.” While one cannot deny the benefits of having international goodwill, governments simply do not have the resources or the ability to assist refugees and immigrants in addition to domestic concerns.

Given each nation’s respective economic, environmental, and geo-political challenges, the crisis of migration nudges some countries to adopt more nationalistic policies. To ensure domestic stability, a reasonable option is to control the influx of migrants competing for the already-strained job market. Government representatives, elected by the people, have the responsibility to perform their best to represent the peoples’ interests and concerns, especially when the latter is shaped by a deteriorating economy and rising political instability. Earning an esteemed international reputation for providing ‘asylums’ for refugees and illegal immigrants is not meant to construct trust between individual and society. France under President Emmanual Macron, the second largest economy of the eurozone, is challenged by a rising national sentiment for populism. In its 2024 European election, according to ECPS statistics, Marine Le pen’s Rassemblement National emerged as the winner with 31.4 % of the vote, surpassing Macron’s Renaissance list by 16.8 %, and Luc Mélenchon’s left-wing populist La France Insoumise by 21.5%. The election outcome is a clear indication that housing refugees is not an effective method to alleviate the country’s cost-of-living crisis, national debts, and potential delays to pensions. 

Instead of placing the responsibility of migrants on the wealthy nations, the UN has responsibility for coordinating its resources to raise funds to improve the living standards of those countries with low GDP. They could look for projects to involve those nations to create employment opportunities, thereby lowering the possibility of violence created. The collective dependence on wealthy nations is a form of moral abduction, and neglects the fact that even the most powerful have their breaking points. 

The future of migration policies would do well to take on a more nationalistic and right-winged attitude. To balance between morality and the apathetic reality of change, the focus should not be finding out who is responsible, but rather alleviating the genesis of poverty and violence. 

Lucy Wu