Abstract

Consider Refuge:

Anna and Becky face equally grave harms in their own countries and can avoid these harms only by resettlement abroad. France is considering whether to resettle Anna or Becky. Anna speaks French and will be able to work. Her contributions to the French economy via taxation will offset any financial costs of her resettlement. Becky does not speak French, will struggle to learn, and will not be able to work. She will not offset the financial costs of her resettlement.

In this paper, I argue that, other things being equal, the French government is morally required to discriminate between Anna and Becky on the basis of their ability to offset their resettlement costs. I do not argue that France must prioritise Anna’s resettlement over Becky’s. I argue, rather, that France has a prima facie duty to resettle Anna and its doing so has no bearing on whether it may exclude Becky. This holds even if France has already incurred the costs demanded by its duty to resettle refugees and any further resettlements are thus seemingly supererogatory. When refugees will offset the costs of their resettlement, those costs are illegitimate grounds for excluding those refugees.