Wealthy countries should accept more refugees and provide them with basic assistance, such as food and housing. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Sample 1:

In recent years, there has been a substantial rise in the number of displaced individuals worldwide. Many have been compelled to leave their homes and families due to factors such as war and insecurity, seeking a more supportive and secure environment. It is my belief that affluent nations could alleviate the plight of these individuals by offering them refuge and essential assistance, as well as relaxing their border restrictions.

One compelling reason for wealthier nations to provide these provisions is to mitigate the risk of crime. This is attributable to the fact that these individuals, as immigrants, may encounter challenges in securing employment after fleeing their home countries due to conflict. Faced with the imperative of providing for themselves and their families, they may resort to theft or other criminal activities if adequate support is not extended to them. For instance, the United Kingdom witnessed a marked surge in crime following an influx of immigrants from Ukraine in 2022, largely due to a lack of support for them. Consequently, the British government initiated a monthly allowance for many of these refugees to facilitate their integration while they seek employment.

Another compelling argument for my strong endorsement of the idea that affluent countries should assist asylum seekers is that it can engender diversity in society, which can, in turn, bolster the economy. A significant proportion of displaced individuals possess expertise in various fields, such as engineering, healthcare, commerce, and industry. Furthermore, they represent diverse ethnic groups, as the causes of their displacement, such as war, famine, and disease, are indiscriminate in their impact. Therefore, hosting nations stand to benefit from the skills and knowledge of the refugees, while also enriching their local communities with new cultures and traditions. Countries with well-established Humanitarian Acceptance Programs (HAP) like the UK, the USA, Canada, and Australia have reaped substantial gains from their benevolence in resettling asylum seekers within their borders.

In conclusion, I maintain that nations endowed with significant wealth should accommodate a greater number of refugees. This, in turn, would curtail instances of theft and other crimes, while also facilitating economic prosperity through the enhancement of diversity within host nations.

Sample 2:

It is a reality that because of war, brutality, and persecution, millions of people were forcibly ejected from their homes. Like many others, I feel that these migrants should be welcomed by rich countries that have ample resources to meet their basic needs, namely shelter and food.
First and foremost, refugees are people who are seeking asylum because their home nations do not provide a safe environment, even if it's not their fault. Due to the human rights law, it is morally the duty of other countries to care for them. Richer nations should take this step in particular because they are the ones who utilise the majority of the world's natural resources. Even if it isn't happening right now, exploitation has been a common occurrence in recent history, and wealthy nations have benefited a lot from it. For instance, despite having abundant natural resources that were once controlled by Europe, Africa is experiencing poverty and a water shortage.
Furthermore, weaker political regions typically lack the resources necessary to fund the welfare benefits for their own residents. For example, despite Turkey having the largest population in the world, the government is unable to provide for all of its citizens' fundamental needs. Therefore, a large portion of them is begging for food on the streets. A residence, money, and even free schooling are provided for refugees in certain other nations, such as Australia. These people can develop themselves and become assets to society owing to their wealthier circumstances.
To sum up, I think wealthy nations should accept refugees because they have the ability to help these individuals reconcile by providing for their basic needs. They also need to share the energy they have earned through exploiting the earth's natural resources with other people living on the planet.

Sample 3:

It is argued that countries with strong economies should accept more refugees and provide them with basic necessities such as food and accommodation. This essay completely agrees with the statement because it is morally right to support those who have fled their war-torn homeland. Additionally, it could be beneficial for host countries in the long term, as these people represent an additional labour force.

It is totally right to help others in severe cases, such as natural disasters or wars. It would be cruel to merely observe displaced people suffering rather than lending a hand. Moreover, before nations became wealthy, they underwent numerous difficulties related to political instability and other circumstances. Consequently, they have gained valuable experience that could be applied. For example, the European Union has ample resources to assist refugees with food and housing issues, thereby making adaptation smoother.

Countries that provide shelter for foreigners could experience a significant benefit. The individuals sheltered will be integrated into economies, resulting in an increase in job openings, higher employment rates, and more taxes paid. Overall, this will definitely stimulate GDP growth. For instance, the immigration policy of the US was relatively soft, and many refugees were hosted during the last 50 decades; today, the country has one of the strongest economies in the world because of the high contribution of labour market expansion.

In conclusion, it is morally right to show great compassion and assist with the basic needs of those who suffer from natural catastrophes or war conflicts. Furthermore, in the long run, wealthy countries will be able to benefit from this support, resulting in expansion of the labour market.

Sample 4:

It is argued that countries with high incomes have to allow a larger number of refugees to cross their borders. I completely agree with this statement because it is morally correct and beneficial for their economies in the long term.

It is not adequate just to watch other nations suffering from being deprived of food and safety. Wealthy states are capable of helping those who require this help. War, hunger, and other negative circumstances happen all the time around the world. Rich states have well-developed agricultural and construction sectors, so it should not be challenging to provide a "safety net" to displaced people. For example, many European regions were involved in the biggest migration crisis in the past decade, and provided shelter to millions of foreigners, showing a good example of humanity.

Besides being cheerful, a positive effect of migration can be achieved. Some of those who had to leave their homeland will start settling down, opening businesses, and becoming a labour force in the end. In addition to that, it will be quite beneficial for economies over a long distance, because a lot of new jobs will appear leading to an increase in incomes for local areas, and it can boost economic growth overall. One of the prominent examples is the migration policy of the USA; people from abroad were accepted, sheltered, and allowed to open businesses thereby increasing the country's GDP.

In conclusion, from an ethical point of view nations have to support each other and provide all the necessary stuff like food or accommodations for refugees. Moreover, this movement can be paid back in advance by those who were adopted, resulting in an upward trend in the labour market.

Sample 5:

It is argued that rich nations should open the door to more people who have fled their homes from wars or natural disasters and provide them with food and shelter. This essay completely disagrees with this statement because it will put a strain on the host countries’ financial and social security.

The first reason why developed countries should limit the number of evacuees entering their homeland is that states have to share their budget in order to accommodate those immigrants. This is to say that the local residents could receive fewer social welfare payments and services than they should have had. Moreover, a considerable amount of money from governments is also allocated for providing necessities for these foreign displaced people. For example, during the Iraq civil war which started some years ago, hundreds of thousands of refugees fled to the neighbouring country Iran, costing this host millions of dollars in humanitarian activities. The same situation repeated in Finland when the Ukraine war broke out last year and Helsinki had to spend a considerable part of its budget on refugee camps while tightening the purse strings on public services and social assistance to its citizens.

The second reason for objecting to the opinion of allowing more refugees is its long-term ramifications on society. This is because most of them are poor or illiterate people who completely live on humanitarian aid. As a result, they not only fail to contribute to the host country but also create more potential conflicts and crimes in local areas. For instance, a Finnish study reports a higher rate of crimes such as thieves, prostitution, drugs and violence in areas where refugee camps are located. As it requires local authorities substantial time and effort to settle this community, such situations persist and make local inhabitants feel insecure when going out.

To conclude, too many refugees entering their territory could be a burden for even wealthy nations for both financial and social reasons.

Sample 6:

It is argued that rich nations should allow more refugees to enter their borders and support them with food and shelter. This essay completely agrees with the above view because rich states have enough resources to enforce, and these communities are fleeing from their lands that are affected by war and famine.

The main reason developed countries should take more displaced people is that they have the financial ability to do so. Countries like Germany, the UK and the USA have huge budgets that they collect in the form of tax from their citizens and companies operating in their territory. It would only take a tiny fraction of their wealth to accommodate and feed millions of poorer people. For instance, it is estimated that the European Union’s combined GDP is over $18 trillion, and all of the Syrian refugees could be resettled for less than a billion dollars. Therefore, developed nationals should aid the world's needy community.

Wealthy nations are obliged to have a moral obligation because evacuees are trying to enter their land because their homes have been ruined by war and hunger. Moreover, no one wants to leave their homeland with their families unless it is essential to do so and if Western nationals refuse to take them in, they will certainly be in danger of losing their lives. For example, the public from Syria have no food and are often caught in the middle of full-scale battles and that is indeed the main reason why nearly 5 million of them have escaped. Hence, developed nations must aid in communities of war-stricken populations.

In conclusion, affluent states should help to resettle refugees because they can afford to do so and it will help save lives of the fellow human beings, and so I completely agree with the question statement.

Sample 7:

Rich nations must welcome many asylum seekers and support their welfare. I totally agree with this statement because they have the resources and helping refugees is an act of kindness that prevents harm to them. These issues are discussed below.

First, wealthy countries are more than capable of accepting and supporting refuge seeking persons with their healthy national budgets. It would not hurt their economies to do so. They equally would continue to satisfy their citizens. For example, despite so many distressed persons flowing into Italy from different regions of the world, the country was recently listed as one of the richest and their citizens the second happiest globally.

Secondly, aiding those that appeal for asylum is not only a demonstration of how kind the developed states can be, but it also helps to reduce fatalities all over the universe. Many people have been injured and died in situations that could have been prevented had someone willingly offered. For instance, in South Sudan, many children starve and or become deceased owing to the limited number of NGOs that work in that conflict-stricken area. These are instances where the rich can become useful.

In conclusion, I completely concur with the view that wealthy nations should accept more refugees and provide them with basic assistance. Doing likewise is a noble act of humility that can save lives and nevertheless, the advanced states of the world can afford it. These and other issues have been addressed at length by this essay to justify its position.

Sample 8:

Some people argue that prosperous nations should take in more refugees, supporting them with food and shelter. In this essay, I am going to explain why I strongly agree with this argument due to the seriousness of this issue and then demonstrate how refugees can collaborate with the countries that accepted these new residents.

Firstly, I think that is morally expected for rich countries to help displaced persons.   Unfortunately, these migrants run away from their own land because they suffer from serious problems there, such as civil wars. In many cases, they are deeply desperate, and they do not have other plausible options rather than look for new opportunities far away from their hometown to stay alive. One example is a Syrian child found dead on a Mexican beach after an unsuccessful swimming crossing. This terrible case provoked a global commotion and many requests for humanitarian support coming from the first world.

On top of that, displaced persons can boost the labour force in wealthy countries. Many of these nations have been facing the problem of decreasing the birth rate. As result, these populations are being more ageing, compromising the workforce available. Therefore, foreign residents can provide positive benefits for them. A study from Oxford University demonstrated that Europe has the lowest birth rate around the world. Apart from that, this research evidenced that it will be necessary for two current workers to maintain financially one retired individual in the next decades.

In conclusion, I reiterate my opinion that prosperous nations should welcome as many refugees as they can because this is a serious question that demands ethical and moral measures urgently. Moreover, these new residents can occupy employments available, helping to maintain the local economy in well-developed regions.

Sample 9:

In our turbulent time, many people from poor or warring countries have been immigrating as refugees to rich countries. As a result, host states have more and more problems with unemployment, a criminal level and diminishes of the local economy. Hence, I can partly agree with the topic statement on account of various reasons that I describe below.

First of all, few people can deny the fact that people in troubles need to help, especially if you have capabilities to it; thereby, wealthy countries, on the surface, would have to accept as many refugees as they could with all assistance that such states could give. People from poor African countries or peaceful citizens belligerent one, for example, do not have another way except run away to other countries, which steadier. Moreover, rich countries always have shortage in lower position workers that can fill in by refugees. Thus, at the first glance wealthy countries would have to accept as many as possible refugees, in order to profit for a local economy and a job market.

Nevertheless, the plethora of evidence demonstrates that the help of refugees brings not only profits, but also many problems. It has been noticed in host countries, for instance, that not all refugees want and can work that leads to increasing levels of unemployment and permanent compensation, which drains the budget. Furthermore, many arrived people have various diseases that could spread in host countries. Likewise, wealthy countries have poor or people who need housing and food too, especially after weather disasters. Consequently, the government of each country would have to decide independently about the possible number of refugees.

To conclude, the undeniable fact is that many people in different countries today, owing to various reasons, need to run away from their country to become wealthy, and receive help. However, I cannot wholeheartedly accept the opinion that rich countries should accept and help refugees because much evidence demonstrates that such a view leads to the controversial future of the host country.