You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Refugees do not have the choice to leave their home and go to another country because of war, dictatorship, etc...
Another society does not have an implicit duty to allow them to enter it. Though it may receive utility or economic benefit for members of it by doing so in which case it could choose to allow them in.
They could stay and fight for freedom.
what about ppl that don't own weapons?
Most successful freedom, human rights fights were non violent. You don' need guns for freedom.
You need weapons to defend yourself from the military that would come to you in a dictatorial regime.
Please refer to Indian freedom movement vs British military.
the British Army didn't launch large scale attacks killing protesters
This is objectively false the British Army did gun down peaceful protesters as in the Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre.
Firearms can also be used to fight off government tyranny.
In practice the individuals most likely to own firearms in US society are politically extreme and, from a moderate perspective, much more dangerous than the government.
please explain how to.
imagine you wake up as jew in nazi-germany you look out the window some soilders put outher jews into a train to auschwitz. You hear that your door got opend. What exactly do you do without fleeing or physical fighting?
If any society reject refuges they will greatly suffer and probably die for nothing.
A society exists to benefit its members. It does not have an obligation to take action to benefit those outside the society
A society didn’t have any goal expect what we choose to give to it.
Moral obligations are relative to a given ethic.
In a utilitarian point of view, a society have a obligation to care equally about everybody. (which doesn’t mean that helping its members first can’t be the best strategy in some context)
Politically, couldn't anybody become a refugee for any reason?
The people who would abandon their home instead of fighting for freedom and justice have no value to the host society.
An individuals support of freedom and justice is not the only measure of value an individual can provide to a society. This conclusion is reached by purposefully ignoring any scientific or economic benefit a person could bring. crow
You should stand for your convictions regardless of how many people rally behind you.
No you should not.
Going in a fight with no chance to win isn’t useful.
If your political view could cost you life, would you stand by your view and risk death , do like everyone else and suffer in silence or quit your country?
This assumes that these are the only three options for one whose political views threaten their life
Are there any other ?
worker and tax payer are good for the host society (regardeless of their will to fight)
Very often, refugees work undocumented or even become slave labour, which may be "good" for the economy but not so much for the individuals, hence the fear of loosing jobs due to refugee influx.
This does not have to be the status quo and most societies that openly accept refugees make at least some effort to integrate them; generally exploitation of refugees or immigrants occurs only when there is a strong feeling of resentment towards them, as in the United States.
how close do you define "society"?
Abandoning your home and going in another country could be the best strategy to protect freedom and justice.
There exist societies where freedom and justice are not held as important concepts, thus by this argument they could still hold value to those societies.