GLOBAL: Affluent nations should accept more refugees.

How would you feel if your family’s safety depended entirely on the kindness of strangers in a distant land? Or if you knew your child’s future hinged on the willingness of another country to open its borders? These are not just hypothetical questions—they reflect the reality faced by millions of refugees every year. It’s a topic that challenges our sense of morality, national responsibility and identity, and global interconnectedness.

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "Affluent nations should accept more refugees," and it comes from our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's dig in.

The issue of accepting refugees has been a global concern for decades, but it has gained particular urgency in recent years due to conflicts, climate change, and economic hardships displacing millions of people. A refugee is defined as someone who has been forced to flee their country because of persecution, war, or violence. The 1951 Refugee Convention, established by the United Nations, sets the legal framework for refugee protection and outlines the rights of refugees and the obligations of countries to protect them.

By May 2024, more than 120 million people, equivalent to Japan's population, the 12th largest country in the world, were forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, or human rights violations. This includes 43.4 million refugees, with a significant portion coming from war-torn regions such as Syria, Afghanistan, and South Sudan; 63.3 million internally displaced people; 6.9 million asylum seekers; and 5.8 million people in need of international protection, a majority from Venezuela.

Wealthier countries like the United States, Germany, and Canada have been key destinations for refugees due to their economic stability and capacity to provide resources. However, the question remains: Should affluent nations do more to accommodate these individuals?

This debate is crucial because it touches on human rights, national security, and international responsibility. Refugees often face life-threatening situations, and their acceptance into safer, more prosperous countries can mean the difference between life and death. Moreover, how affluent nations respond to the refugee crisis reflects their values and commitment to global solidarity. Understanding this debate helps us see how policies affect not only refugees but also the societies that receive them.

Agree: Affluent nations should accept more refugees Affluent nations have a moral obligation to help those in dire need. Many of these nations have the resources and infrastructure to support refugees, unlike poorer countries that often bear the brunt of the crisis. For example, countries like Lebanon and Jordan have taken in millions of Syrian refugees despite their limited resources. Wealthier countries can and should share this burden. Refugees can contribute positively to the economy. Studies have shown that refugees are often hardworking and entrepreneurial, starting businesses and creating jobs. In Germany, for instance, many Syrian refugees have started their own businesses, contributing to local economies. By accepting more refugees, affluent nations can benefit from a diverse and motivated workforce. Accepting refugees helps to promote global stability. When affluent nations provide safe havens, it helps to stabilize regions in conflict by reducing the strain on neighboring countries. This, in turn, can prevent conflicts from escalating and spreading, thus promoting global security.

Disagree: Affluent nations should not accept more refugees Accepting more refugees could strain a country's resources, such as healthcare, education, and housing. This strain can lead to social tensions,