We share a recent episode of another philosophy podcast Philosophy Takes on the News. It’s a show in which philosophers chat about the latest events. In this episode, guests chat about Liz Truss’ rise to power, floods in Pakistan, reparations for climate change and much more besides.

Here’s three facts about the Nigeria. Fact one: Nigerians have just 4 doctors per 10,000 people. For comparison, the UK has 30 doctors per 10,000 people, that’s more than seven times as many. Fact two: life expectancy in Nigeria is just 55. In the UK it’s 81. Fact three: half of Nigerian doctors are currently working abroad. Some take such facts as a sign of the costs of migration. They blame migration for draining poor countries of the skilled professionals they desperately need to address poverty and disease. Paul Bou-Habib, from Essex University, has a different take. He thinks that the real problem here is one exploitation. Rich countries are benefiting from migration without giving back. So, what are the costs of skilled migration? What is exploitation and how does it differ from related concepts such as robbery and theft? And if Paul is right that brain drain is a serious ethical problem, can philosophers really do anything to solve it?

What do Albert Einstein, Madeleine Albeit and Freddie Mercury have in common? Well, at least two things. All three were refugees and all three made dedicated contributions in their respective fields. In these respects, they are not unique. Most refugees work and pay taxes. Many contribute more to their host countries than receive back in benefits. By selecting refugees based on their ability to pay, governments can maximise the chances that those they admit will, at the very least, offset the costs of their resettlement. Refugee advocates often decry such selection as unjust discrimination. In their view, the sole criteria for selection should be need. So, who is right here? Helen Frowe, from Stockholm University, offers a surprising answer. She thinks that selecting for ability to pay can be permissible. Indeed, she thinks it can be morally required. So, what is the argument for this form of selection? Can it be morally distinguished from racial or religious discrimination? And how does Helen answer the claim that what she is proposing is simply unfair?