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 argued that richer nations should welcome more displaced people and assist them with essential life needs. I am in the favour of

this

Linking Words

idea because of humanitarian obligation and the economic stability of wealthy states. The most prominent reason why fortune countries should render supports is because of the human rights. According to the Universal Declaration of Human RIghts, all men and women should be entitled to all the rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind of reasons. No one wants to leave their homeland with their families unless it is essential to do so.

That is

Linking Words

to say, it is immoral not to help these people who fled from their war torn countries. A particularly good example here is the Syrian refugees, they try to

enter the

Accept comma addition

enter, the

more wealthy land because of the continuous famine and war. The

second

Linking Words

reason is that the affluent nations have abundant financial resources to aid those poorer states. Countries like USA, has a huge tax revenue from taxpayers every year. Taking a tiny fraction of

this

Linking Words

wealth to accommodate and feed millions of poor people would not impose any harmful effect on its economics.

For instance

Linking Words

, the European Union's combined GPD is over $18 trillion, and all displaced Syrians could be resettled for less than a billion dollars as long as the their economy is stable. In conclusion, affluent countries definitely should give more supports to refugees because it is moral to do so and they are wealthy enough to give. It is recommended that to do so.