Concerns about national security and the potential consequences of receiving refugees or asylum seekers frequently enter the argument. Some claim that strict immigration rules are required to protect national security. Others, however, argue that adequate screening procedures and integrating measures can address these issues without jeopardizing the rights of asylum seekers.

Immigration Policies: The administration of immigration policies, including determining who qualifies for refugee status and processing asylum requests, is a difficult issue. The fairness, efficiency, and transparency of asylum processes, as well as government’s responsibility to absorb and assimilate migrants, are all being debated.

Resource Allocation: The issue of resource allocation, as well as the burden on public services, can spark debate. Some say that allowing a high number of refugees can put pressure on local resources and services, potentially affecting the well-being of host communities. Others stress the humanitarian obligation to help and support those in need.

Individuals’ refugee and asylum rights are violated when they are refused protection, are subjected to refoulement (being returned to a country where they suffer persecution), or are exposed to harsh treatment. Violations can also occur when nations enforce restrictive immigration rules that discourage people from seeking refuge or unfairly imprison asylum applicants.

The refugee rights debate highlights the persistent difficulties in reconciling the humanitarian obligation to provide refuge and protection with the complications of controlling migration and national security concerns. Addressing these issues would necessitate international cooperation, respect for legal frameworks, and comprehensive measures that promote the dignity, safety, and well-being of those escaping persecution.