Is it fair to impose mandatory quotas of refugees?

Amid the huge influx of migrants to Europe, many of them fleeing war in Syria, the European Commission has proposed mandatory quotas for EU nations to take in refugees.

      

But is it fair?

      

Some EU member states, such as Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, have already voiced strong opposition to the idea of mandatory quotas.

But others, including Germany, say it is the only way to ensure a fair distribution of refugees among EU member states.

       

Under the EU proposal, 120,000 refugees will be relocated from Greece, Italy and Hungary—three EU nations at the forefront of the crisis due to transit routes across the Mediterranean and through the Balkans. The figure of 120,000 is on top of an earlier proposal by the EC to relocate 40,000 people in need of international protection from Italy and Greece.

      

Those in favor of taking in refugees cite the need to comply with the fundamental right to asylum of people fleeing from conflict or oppression. But those opposed to it say that the influx of refugees could be a burden on their existing social structures and processes. 

      

The quota system may be considered fair as the refugees would be distributed among other EU states based on each country's population, GDP, past asylum applications received and employment rate.

      

In other words, the quotas would depend on each country's capability to host the migrants.

      

Besides, the European Commission says that additional EU funding would be provided to countries taking in refugees and asylum-seekers.

      

At the same time, apart from taking in migrants in the spirit of solidarity, Europe should  actively support efforts to reach political solutions in Syria, Iraq and Libya, and to assist the countries now hosting the bulk of those fleeing civil war.

      

In the end, it's a matter of showing respect for human rights. –End-

Image by: news.bbc.co.uk