On 21 August 2012 11:28, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:

I don't think anybody seriously entertains the above. However, accepting
refugees who arrive (subject to assessment of refugee status) is the correct
response, because it's the only response that respects the rights of the
refugees.

One of the central tenets of human rights is that they aren't subject to
utilitarian, cost-benefit analyses: if a person has a right, then it must be
respected even if it's costly and inconvenient to do so.

But these rights aren't real rights, they aren't natural rights, they are rights determined arbitrarily by the UN. They contradict natural rights. For instance, the right to private property is a natural right, but if people are being taxed against their will in order to finance the indulgence of various arbitrary 'rights' then the right to private property is being violated.

These UN ordained 'rights' are more correctly called claims. Claims against the resources of others.

I agree resettlement of refugees would be a better solution on utilitarian grounds. Therefore remove the welfare state and allow people to manage their own affairs, the result will be that things progress towards the most utilitarian solution.