In this chapter I examine the criteria that it is legitimate for liberal states to use when selecting refugees for admission. My aim is not to provide detailed policy guidance. Refugee policy, like immigration policy generally, is a complex matter, and states have evolved different selection practices to suit their particular circumstances and the demands for admission that they face. Nevertheless, we can readily agree that some selection criteria are inadmissible – selection on grounds of race, for example. In particular, I want to explore whether in setting their policies, states have simply to respond to the weight of the moral claim that each refugee can make to be admitted, or whether they also have some scope to shape these policies to reflect the preferences and interests of their own citizens. In relation to the former, what gives one refugee a stronger claim than another to be granted admission, on either a temporary or a permanent basis? In relation to the latter, how far, if at all, is it permissible for states to allow considerations of national culture, economic advantage, social cohesion and so forth to influence their refugee selection policies?

Of the cast of characters who populate the contemporary world, none is more familiar than the figure of the refugee. He or she is visible to us mainly as a person on the move, the victim of war or ethnic cleansing. We see her sitting surrounded by her life’s possessions in a battered truck crossing the wasteland; we see him strapped into an orange lifejacket and crammed precariously on an inflatable raft; we see her waiting sorrowfully in front of a border fence hoping that a guard will one day let her cross. But our remotely acquired visual impressions can mislead. Refugees who are actively in flight make up only a small fraction of the number who qualify for that designation at any moment. The vast majority – some 25 million – are more or less stationary, living largely out of our sight in the global South, in encampments that are purpose-built or home-made, or on the margins of cities like Beirut or Peshawar. They exist in a kind of limbo, often unwelcome visitors in the countries that have little choice but to house them, but unable to return to their homelands while conditions there remain hostile or unsafe. Many would prefer to be resettled in rich, developed countries – typically more than half a million apply to do so each year. But the number who succeed is only a fraction of this, since the governments of these countries set quotas for accepting refugees and go to considerable lengths to enforce them. The events of 2015, when more than a million migrants, including many refugees, entered Europe directly and found sanctuary there, were unprecedented in the recent past, and are unlikely to be repeated. Yet, for citizens in Europe and North America, it is the minority who attempt to settle in the global North who capture most of their attention, and philosophical reflection on the moral and political claims of the refugee, of the kind that occupies this book, has also focussed mainly on those who seek admission to rich developed countries.

In the setting of disease, religion can play a positive role in a person’s life, helping them manage their perception of an illness, bolstering the ability of the patient and their family to manage the diagnosis, day-to-day functioning and treatment [1]. Individuals who have practised religion earlier in life may show new vigour in their belief after diagnosis of a serious illness, or religion can be discovered for the first time. Increased religiosity can be a means for support and comfort through difficult periods in a person’s life.

Indian country in the United States is incredibly poor. Indian nations desperately need to develop reservation economic activities. Most tribal governments, however, are primarily focused on developing tribally owned businesses. This chapter argues for Indian peoples and Indian governments to revive and regenerate their century old institutions that promoted, supported, and protected private sector economic development and economies. Indian country and Indian peoples need to develop economic enterprises and activities in their homelands to ensure their sustainability by creating living wage jobs and adequate housing. Developing private sector economies, in addition to tribal public sector economies, will help create economic diversification on reservations, new businesses and jobs, protect from economic downturns, slow the "brain drain" that all rural areas suffer, and promote more spending which will help Indian country benefit from the "multiplier effect" as more and more money is spent, and re-spent, on reservations.