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

The number of

refugees

around the world has continuously been increasing over the world due to calamities like war and natural disasters.

This

is raising the question of whether these people need to relocate to developed

countries

as they have limited options of survival in their home

countries

.

However

, I believe,

instead

of taking the

refugees

, richer

nations

should ensure a better life for them in their home

countries

. Additional

refugees

usually put

a

Remove the article

apply

show examples

greater pressure on a country's social system. It is true that

population

Correct article usage

the population

show examples

in wealthy

nations

are

also

growing which is already inflicting enough pressure on the social and financial systems of these

countries

. France,

for example

, has seen a major spike in the number of asylum-seekers intake over the past years, which in turn

stressing

Change the form of the verb

stresses

show examples

the normal lifestyle of its own citizens.

Therefore

, accepting thousands of

refugees

is not a viable solution rather a short-term initiative. In place of accommodating

refugees

, the developed world can work together to prevent battles and climate disasters

which

Correct pronoun usage

that

show examples

are pegging back some developing

nations

.

This

can be done in a concerted effort of raising a voluminous fund that will be used to improve the life of people.

Additionally

,

this

money can be utilised to fight against any evil be it disasters or war. Indeed, it will help the

countries

with a huge number of

refugees

to become self-dependent. In conclusion, I maintain that the wealthy

nations

do have ethical responsibilities toward the people who lost their country, but that can be done by ensuring a better place to live in their home country.