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

It is argued that more refuge ought to be welcomed by the rich countries and facilitate them with basic needs,

such

Linking Words

as sustenance and shelter. I completely disagree with

this

Linking Words

statement because when they come to the receiving

state

Use synonyms

they do not own that

country

Use synonyms

and they

also

Linking Words

put strain on the health and education system. The main reason why financially strong nations should not accept the refugees is because they do not own that

state

Use synonyms

where they come as a refugee. And they create many problems in that

state

Use synonyms

,

such

Linking Words

as, they do corruption as well as they become involved in drug supply in the

state

Use synonyms

.

For example

Linking Words

, a recent survey conducted by the Forest university in Canada that the people who are involved in drugs dealing are the ones who came from different parts of the world to Canada as a refugee. The

second

Linking Words

main reason is that they want to be treated like nationals. They put a strain on the health and education system of that

state

Use synonyms

who accepts them. They want jobs in public sectors and when do not get the jobs they curse the nation.

For instance

Linking Words

, there is a report of The New York Times that people who came from different parts of the world are demanding jobs in public sectors in Chicago.

However

Linking Words

, some refugees are capable enough of doing their own business and give the financial benefit to that

country

Use synonyms

where they came as a refugee. In conclusion,

although

Linking Words

some refugees give benefits to the nation, I believe wealthier countries should not welcome the refugees because do not think that

country

Use synonyms

as their own

country

Use synonyms

.