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?
It is commonly stated that richer nations ought to accept more asylum seekers and assist them with food and shelter, which are fundamental needs for humans. This essay strongly disagrees with this view because refugees often face difficulties with communication, which leads them to unemployment and countries should solve the problems of their own citizens first. A growing number of people hold the view that refugees often face language barriers as their main issue when arriving in a new country. That is to say, they are unable to communicate well with the locals and consequently, many of them struggle to find a job. For example, many Syrian refugees, who were granted their refugee visa in 2014 in Australia, were unable to find a job. To make matters worse, some of them opted to commit crimes, such as robberies and theft, in order to survive in the country. Clearly, bringing them to wealthy countries is not an ideal long-term solution for the country or the refugees. Another reason why first-world countries should reconsider helping refugees is that it is a common view even in Australia, Canada, or the UK, that homelessness is everywhere. It is argued that the government should assist their own people first before assisting other people from other countries. For instance, The Guardian reported that there are some Australian citizens who have been living in the streets for at least five years and they have never received any assistance from the state. Thus, I believe that it is important for a country to take care of its own citizens first. In conclusion, this essay has argued that developed nations should not take more refugees because they often have communication issues, resulting in unemployment, and there are local homeless people who should be prioritised first to receive assistance.