Here are a couple of philosophy grad students arguing that the answer is ‘no.’ Ideal typical exemplars of the position Huntington is arguing against. In their view, the rights of refugees to ‘not be confined’ makes it impossible for countries to refuse to accept them. They argue that, even if the US could literally not afford to accommodate all refugees, we would nonetheless be morally responsible for paying for their transportation to another safe country because to fail to do so would infringe on that right to ‘not be confined.’ They conclude by analogizing their argument about refugees to the case of the homeless–that is, they argue that excluding the homeless from your home is also a violation of their right ‘not to be confined,’ and therefore you are essentially obligated to let the homeless into your home to stay.
What do you think about their arguments?