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?