David Miller argues that when it comes to protecting human rights, states’ actions should reflect primarily the ‘terms’ of states, as they see fit; furthermore, states do not have a duty to automatically admit refugees, if for example, other similarly well off states can admit them, and the principle of non-refoulement is fulfilled (Miller, 2013). State-centrist views assuming the point of view of states primarily, and second, assuming that the only theoretically salient feature is when refugees do not receive admission, and as a result, human rights are violated, has pernicious implications. Alternatively, I argue that human rights are possible primarily when we view their defense as a primary moral concern, rather than instrumental and contingent upon what states see fit. I propose instead a philosophical view that genuinely assumes and act upon the need of refugees primarily, in both being admitted and rejected in new territories.
