The global refugee crisis is one of the most pressing humanitarian challenges of our time. Tens of millions of people have been forced to flee their homes due to armed conflict, persecution, climate disasters, and...
Faglig kvalitetssikret av lærere og toppstudenter · Følger læreplanen (LK20) · Sist oppdatert 2026-09-06
This guide provides a deep analysis of the question: Should wealthier countries accept more refugees? It breaks down a model essay, explaining the core concepts, common pitfalls, and exactly what an examiner looks for to award top grades in an argumentative essay.
This comprehensive guide delves into the complex and often debated question: "Should wealthier countries accept more refugees?" It aims to equip students with the necessary tools to construct a high-scoring argumentative essay by providing a detailed model answer, clarifying essential terminology, and highlighting common mistakes to avoid. Understanding this topic is crucial for the VG3 English exam, as it hones skills in critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and crafting persuasive, well-structured arguments on global issues.
Questions about global challenges, ethics, and government responsibility are common in the English subject, particularly in the VG3 written exam. You are expected to write a well-structured argumentative text where you discuss a complex issue from multiple perspectives. This topic directly relates to competence aims in the English curriculum (LK20), which require you to "write coherent, well-structured, and persuasive texts" and "acquire knowledge about and reflect on social conditions... in the English-speaking world." An exam task might be phrased as: "Discuss the moral and practical challenges of the global refugee crisis," requiring the exact skills demonstrated in the model essay below. Furthermore, this topic engages with the interdisciplinary theme of Democracy and Citizenship, asking you to reflect on human rights, international cooperation, and a nation's responsibilities in a globalised world.
To write effectively on this topic, you must understand the key terminology. Using these terms correctly and confidently demonstrates a high level of subject knowledge and linguistic precision. An examiner will notice when a student accurately distinguishes between a refugee and a migrant, for instance.
| Term | Definition | Example from the Essay |
|---|---|---|
| Refugee | A person forced to flee their country due to persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. | "...people have been forced to flee their homes due to armed conflict, persecution..." |
| Asylum Seeker | A person who has left their home country, has applied for protection as a refugee in another country, and is awaiting a decision on their application. While every refugee is initially an asylum seeker, not every asylum seeker will ultimately be recognised as a refugee. | "Wealthy nations that are parties to this convention are legally bound to assess asylum claims fairly and provide protection where it is warranted." |
| Migrant | A broader term referring to any person who moves from one place to another, usually for economic reasons, work, or education. Unlike refugees, migrants choose to move and can typically return home safely. | (Not directly in essay, but implied by distinguishing from refugee) |
| Internally Displaced Person (IDP) | Someone who has been forced to flee their home but has not crossed an internationally recognized border. They remain within their own country and are often overlooked in international discussions. | (Not directly in essay, but a related concept to deepen understanding) |
| The 1951 Refugee Convention | A key international treaty that defines the term ‘refugee’ and outlines the rights of the displaced, as well as the legal obligations of states to protect them. It is legally binding for its signatory states. | "The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol...establish the right to seek asylum..." |
| Principle of Non-Refoulement | A core principle of international refugee law that forbids a country from returning asylum seekers to a country in which they would be in likely danger of persecution. This principle is considered customary international law, binding on all states. | "...prohibit the forced return of refugees to countries where they face serious harm." |
| Integration | The complex process by which refugees are incorporated into the social, economic, and cultural life of a new society. This includes access to employment, housing, education, and healthcare, often requiring active support from the host government. | "...investing in effective integration and sharing the burden more equitably among nations." |
| Burden-Sharing | The principle that the responsibility for hosting and supporting the world's refugees should be shared equitably among states, rather than falling disproportionately on a few, often less wealthy, nations. This can involve financial aid, resettlement, or logistical support. | "...the responsibility for hosting refugees is distributed fairly across wealthy nations..." |
| Humanitarian Aid | Material or logistical assistance provided for humanitarian purposes, typically in response to humanitarian crises. It aims to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain human dignity. | (Related to the moral obligation to help) |
The global refugee crisis is one of the most pressing humanitarian challenges of our time. Tens of millions of people have been forced to flee their homes due to armed conflict, persecution, climate disasters, and extreme poverty. While international law—most notably the 1951 Refugee Convention—obliges countries to provide protection to those fleeing persecution, there is fierce debate about how many refugees wealthier nations should accept and what responsibilities they bear toward the world's most vulnerable people. This essay will argue that wealthier countries have a clear moral and legal obligation to accept more refugees, but that effective integration and international burden-sharing are essential to making this sustainable.
The most powerful argument for wealthier nations accepting more refugees is a moral one. People who flee war, genocide, or severe political repression are among the world's most vulnerable individuals, having lost their homes, livelihoods, and in many cases their families through no fault of their own. Wealthy nations, by virtue of their stable institutions, strong economies, and historical roles in shaping global politics—including, in many cases, contributing to the conflicts that generate refugees—bear a particular responsibility to offer protection. Turning away desperate people at the border, when a country has the capacity to help, is difficult to justify from any ethical perspective, whether rooted in human rights, religious tradition, or basic empathy.
International law also reinforces this obligation. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, signed by the majority of the world's nations, establish the right to seek asylum and prohibit the forced return of refugees to countries where they face serious harm. Wealthy nations that are parties to this convention are legally bound to assess asylum claims fairly and provide protection where it is warranted. Refusing to accept refugees in adequate numbers therefore represents not only a moral failure but a breach of international legal commitments that undermines the rules-based global order.
Despite these compelling arguments, critics raise legitimate concerns about the consequences of accepting large numbers of refugees in a short period of time. High levels of migration can place pressure on housing, healthcare, education, and social services, particularly in communities that already face economic challenges. When integration is poorly managed, cultural and social tensions can emerge, fuelling resentment and giving rise to populist political movements that exploit public anxiety. Critics argue that governments have a responsibility to their own citizens first, and that accepting refugees beyond the country's integration capacity may ultimately harm both the host population and the refugees themselves.
There are also concerns about border control and national security. While the vast majority of refugees are law-abiding people fleeing danger, critics argue that insufficiently rigorous screening processes could allow criminal elements or individuals with extremist views to enter a country. These concerns, while often exaggerated, are not entirely without foundation and deserve to be addressed through robust but fair asylum systems that process claims efficiently without sacrificing the rights of genuine refugees. …